Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Health

Quote:

Throughout his life Luther was known to suffer from bad health, including severe constipation.

No, it's not vandalism. I checked this and it stands up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.183.78 (talk • contribs)

Dear Friend:

Welcome and thank you for your contribution. I hope your introduction to this page wasn't too -- abrupt. Please do come back and work with us.

Indeed, there is much discussion about Luther's health and how it fed into his personality and actions. I have no objections to including something about it, but if you wish to include only one sentence on the matter, please insert it into an existing section. If you would like to expand on it to more than a paragraph in length, go ahead and insert it as a section. Please fully cite it, however, since we've been attempting to bring this article up to the highest standards.

I also have two requests for you. Please register as a user, sign in each time and sign your talk page posts. ABove the edit box is a row of buttons. The third from the right attaches a "signature" -- your username, date and time. It is an important part of building community. We get to know you at least virtually and can build a working relationship when you do this. The second request is: please put new sections of the talk page at the bottom of the page. It makes new comments easier to find.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Luther's health deserves a separate section, but I've plugged in more data from Brecht to give a more complete picture. Ptmccain 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's not vandalism then it is trivia that does not belong in the article.--Mantanmoreland 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is a major theme in Luther studies. For those who are interested, I'd be happy to suggest some readings on the topic. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Source Discussion

The following discussion developed across talk pages today and is being moved here because it is relevant to the page. Note that there were two strands of dicussion, which I've tried to reassemble below. I have edited a couple posts to delete redundancies created because the conversation was going on accross pages (e.g. phrases like "I responded on the other page...") and I've omitted a couple entries that were irrelevant to the discussion. Sam 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam: Please take a look at: this edit summary. Do you agree, especially with the characterization? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for what will be a long-winded response. I have been holding my tongue on these issues very consciously, since, among other things, I like to really know what I am talking about before I weigh in. But, since you have asked, I will answer (and I would answer and answer the same way regardless of who asked).

I have not read Siemon-Netto, so I don't have a strong view on the quality of his work. He is on my reading list, but it is a very long list and I haven't gotten to even tracking down his CV and seeing what is easily available. I have read Shirer, and my view of Shirer is that he writes an exceedingly good book, and that, for a journalist, he is reasonably careful on historical issues. I think Manmoreland's summary overstates Shirer's credentials as an historian, though it should be obvious that Shirer is one of the more important popularizers of history around and he is more careful about his work than many popularizers. My understanding is that Shirer follows, to a great degree, A.J.P. Taylor on these issues (though, again, I would have liked to have done more spade work on this before making that conclusion). A.J.P. Taylor is both a very thorough and very controversial historian. While I personally would not hesitate to cite him, any cite to him is likely to result in an ad hominem attack against him, which I view as regrettable, inappropriate and inevitable. In terms of statements on the relative credentials of historians, I posted some thoughts in the FAC process, the bottom line of which is I see no need for any credentials to be recited in the body for any scholar.

I believe there are good ways to get a rough measure of the weight accorded to academic works within the profession. The first and most useful is to look at reviews in academic journals. Reviews of individual books are useful, but broad historiographies by authorities in a field are even more useful. I had earlier posted two reviews I found, one of Shirer and one of Siemon-Netto; I will see if I can find that posting. A second approach is to look at how they are cited in academic journals (not just how many times, but also how favorably). Siemon-Netto, of course, will be cited less frequently because he is more recent, but still, a pattern of regular favorable citation in academic journals establishes legitimacy. But it is also essential to read these authors before judging their work. Obviously, the question of the underlying causes of the Holocaust is among the most important questions of our time, and there is an enormous body of work on it, and some level of survey of that body is essential to determining importance and legitimacy of scholarly work. Establishing credibility requires much spade work, reflecting the fact that good history is hard. Sam 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I'm driving at is that Siemon-Netto has academic credentials and should be treated with respect. It is easy to get into a game of trying to attack the reputation of scholars. The last time that this man was attacked, I showed what going over vitaes with a fine tooth comb could do by looking at the background of Paul Johnson and Robert Michael. To say it mildly, it was not well received. But for some reason, editors on this subject want to go down that road constantly.

I would prefer to accept the published opinion of people respected for their scholarly and research skills. From that point on, we consider if they represent a majority or siginficant minority opinion.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe everything in writing, even in academic journals. And I have not gone through the debate with a fine tooth comb, only skimmed what has been presented to me. But, given the academic credentials cited, I wouldn't attack Siemon-Netto myself without reading him and having specific unsupported viewpoints or otherwise showing inadequacy in his work. I do not take criticism that does not display a reading of the criticized very seriously, and it is not clear to me that his critics have read him (they may have, it just isn't clear from what I've read so far). On the other hand, to support him, I would recommend that you check book reviews in academic publications, citations in academic journals, and perhaps even citations in some of the later works they are citing. You also may consider going to the points you're citing and highlighting his own sources. So, I have no reason to believe he is not a credible, top shelf academic worthy of citation, and I do not question his citation, but, not having read him, I can't tell you if he is someone I myself would rely on or recommend to others. If others have read him and have specifics as to why he falls short, that would be more useful than what I've seen thus far. Sam 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UT C)

Grunberger not Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I confused authorities debated over. I've been mulling over this whole dust-up on sources. So, my views on Shirer are thrown in. My views on Grunberger: I read what was assigned to me during an upper level history course on Resistance Movements during World War II, and it seemed a good book written for a general audience. I wouldn't hesitate to cite it. That brings up another way of getting to underlying credibility: something that shows up on course syllabi in specialized history programs. Sam

Also note previous discussion of this subject, which I believe was in Year 26 of this thirty-years editing war. [1]. The same battle erupts every time a major historian is cited in a manner critical of Luther, and a minor historian is thrown in to offset and push the pro-Luther POV. I appreciate your efforts to be fair here but this eternal editing conflict is unlikely to be solved by your efforts. I speak from experience on that. Just a word to the wise, to lower your expectations and so you don't start ripping out your hair as I did approximately ten days ago.--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is one way of making the distinction. I.e., major, recognized notable historians are on course syllabi, as compared to minor, unrecognized, non-notable journalists whose works are published in religious journals and specialized publishing houses for the audience of one particular religion. Also this whole subject has been discussed before, as noted on your talk page. Putting Siemon-Netto in the same class as Grunberger is only slightly more absurd than putting him in the same class as Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, I would have preferred to have held off weighing in on this, and am about to head off and get some work done and let everyone else at it. That having been said, have you read Simeon-Netto or done some of the spade work yourself? There are very good historians out there working in narrow areas with small followings. Sam 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am thoroughly familiar with his work. However, I don't think it is necessary for Wikipedia editors to be nerds the way I am. If it did, I and other nearsighted, hunchbacked fools such as myself would be running Wiki, and thank heavens it is not. There are other criteria to judge reliable source such as the ones you cited. Otherwise you shut out the viewpoint of good and objective editors who want a neutral and not biased article.

This skirmish in the 30 years editing war I think needs to be fought on the relevant article talk page. Also I would suggest again that you read through the discussion here [2], in which this very subject was discussed. The issue is the view of Source X by objective, third party sources, not the personal opinions of Wikpedia editors or whether or not Wikipedia editors have read every word by every source cited.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving it would be a good idea; I'm under the gun on something, but if no one moves it by tonight, I will. FYI: I don't think it's necessary for us all to be nerds (but good to see the club is strong) to edit, but I do think it is important to know the stuff before attacking it. So, what should I read to see these flaws in all their glory? Sam 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't matter. Let's see some third-party, objective sources indicating that this person has any status at all as a historian or scholar. Anyway, I'm signing off for now. If you want to move, fine, but please try to advance the discussion over what was previous and not go over old territory.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the section "Luther and the Jews"

I am placing my comments here as all new comments should be put at the end of the page. If it were a choice between "Luther and Antisemitism" and "Luther's writings against the Jews" I would chose the latter as being the more NPOV of the two. Jayjg and MPerel have indicated above that they preferred this title if not for my reasons. I disagree with Jayjg that Luther's other writings are not important. This is not true: No less a person than Haim Hillel Ben Sasson in his A History of the Jewish People (vol. 2, p. 323) has implied that Luther's That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew of 1523 had more influence in the three centuries that followed than his On the Jews and Their Lies of 1543 or his Vom Schem Hamphoras. That means that this section should not be made so narrow that it excludes Luther's writings that were favorable to the Jews. Jayjg has also pointed out that the section should be a summary: there is a whole separate articles Martin Luther and the Jews that deals with the topic; however, when more and more stuff is put here that advocates a POV this necessitates adding material that is from a balancing POV. We should keep the name as it is since it deals comprehensively with everything Luther wrote about the Jews and we should return to the well ordered version of mid-June. If more needs to be said there is the other separate article.--Drboisclair 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• • After listening to different proposals here for a couple of days, and after making myself sit down and read through, line by line, "On the Jews and Their Lies", here is where I come out:

First, I am absolutely opposed to any change that is not done with broad consensus. I believe a higher level of consensus should be sought for issues relating to this section.

Second, I think Drboisclair is right that Luther's other writings relating to Jews and Judaism are part of the article and should be referenced in the section, and that Doright is right that actions of Luther, not just his writings, are part of the article and should be referenced in the section. The goal is comprehensiveness.

Third, the title should include reference to anti-Semitism. While I do not advocate changing this until someone has gone through the difficult task of engaging in a dialogue on the issue and convincing others of their case, particularly one or more of the Lutheran scholars who have worked so hard on this article as a whole, I think that the publication of "On the Jews and Their Lies" is, today, an important moment in the history of anti-Semitism. Having read the points made, I have not been convinced that there is any reason to avoid the word, but am open to that discussion.

Luther's name should not be in this or any other heading for wikistyle reasons.

So, my conclusion, the best name for this would be "__________ and Anti-Semitism" or "___________, Anti-Semitism and ___________"; the blanks representing some terms relating to Luther's other writings and/or other actions. However, whatever that name is should be selected by broad consensus, and no change should occur yet. Sam 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Summary State of Luther and the Jews Section

Dear Jay: I'd recommend we return to the state of the section as it was June 23. Does this look good to you and others? If not, is there another point to which a rollback would be acceptable?

If so, I suggest we merge into Martin Luther and the Jews anything that is in the current state of the section here that is not already there. We then replace the section with the version. We'd add a commented out plea to discuss before changing the section, esp. by expansion. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is the best way to go here. The section should be a summary of all Luther wrote about the Jewish people.--Drboisclair 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The older summary reads much better than the current one, and includes most of the themes. One way of solving this would be to maintain the crisper presentations but to add footnotes as people see fit with additional quotes to buttress their points. If there is a theme in the current discussion that does not exist in the earlier version, and someone can clearly identify it, it might be appropriate to add that, but I do not see it. The current language has become a jumble of quotations strung together that read very poorly, and so obscure everyone's points. Sam 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Better to summarize the current version than to turn the clock back, methinks. Better quotes in the current one.--Mantanmoreland 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of returning to the above state is that it was generally accepted text. It is also in summary form, which is what an encyclopedia is all about. The suggested version gives the basic information about the subject and links to the fuller article, where anyone interested can get more detail and all the quotations our editors wish to add.

Once we've returned to that version, we can adjust it, of course. I would strongly recommend, however, that we talk out any proposed changes here first, or we will be right back here again. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that the version at Time X at 23 June, out of the 20000 or whatever versions, was "generally accepted." That was just one skirmish in the middle of a 30-year editing war that continues to this day. But even if it actually had been the reflection of a moment of calm on the editing battlefield, the current version still has far better quotes and is a better starting point for condensation.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; if it needs to be cut down to size again, then just do it. Wikipedia is a wiki; that means it changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been all of 30 years, unless you are comparing it to the 30 Year's War of 1618-48. The section should be summarized pure and simple. Both sides of the issue should compromise about the tidbits of quotations put into it. Having studied Luther for many years it is my considered opinion that narrowing it to "Luther and Antisemitism" or "Luther's writings against the Jews" is inconsistent with summarizing and comprising the whole body of Luther's writings concerning the Jews. Luther also wrote That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew in 1523, which was not a writing against the Jews. Rabbi Sasson has said in his History that this was an influential document. If the section is labeled "Luther's writings against the Jews", then it would not fit here. We would have to have two sections: "Luther's writings against the Jews" and "Luther's writings favorable to the Jews". Why not just have it as it was decided upon within the last six months. Let's be objective about this.--Drboisclair 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did not mean literally thirty years (though I stand corrected if that is so). A long-running edit battle.--Mantanmoreland 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of this article began in 2001 when it was first created, and there was a debate at that time about Luther's writings about the Jews. The good thing about it is that it can inform a comprehensive summary in this article, linked to the special article.--Drboisclair 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the second edit introduced a paragraph on anti-Semitism. The third edit condensed it, the fourth edit expanded it, and so on until this day.--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I'm not saying things do not change (especially on Wiki). What I'm suggesting is it is a good place to start. It would be a lot quicker. Roll it back and then ask what is not satisfactory about it. We would then modify after talking it out. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, I really don't see the use in repeatedly asking the same question that has been asked and answered so many times. What part of this answer do you not understand:

"Better to summarize the current version than to turn the clock back, methinks. Better quotes in the current one."

To this, Jayjg's response, "Indeed; . . . ."

Of course, Jayjg or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong. --Doright 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Doright, what is the point behind the above post and the one in the section below? Let's focus on the issues. If you think a point I've made is repetitive, simply ignore it. If you think there's a new aspect, answer it or ignore it. Turning the discussion to editors and away from the issues is not helpful. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The points are clear. And for the perhaps the 1,000th time, please stop your attacks. Stop implying that I'm not focusing on the issues and am turning the discussion to editors (which is exactly what you have done here). Interesting how often your charges are a projection of your own behavior. Perhaps, you can now focus on the question I asked above: What part of the answer to your question do you not understand? If you think the question is helpful answer it otherwise ignore it, but stop the gratuitous attacks. --Doright 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you think the rolled back version is better than the current one as a starting point, aside from procedural reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly procedural. It starts us in summary state. I think it would be much easier to work together from that position rather than debating what to cut. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In editing tis easier to subtract than to add. Besides, this version has good quotes from authoritative third-party scholars. --Mantanmoreland 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mantanmoreland is right; it's easier to cut down than bulk up, and the sources in the later version appear to better. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone is game to go that way, it will be fine with me, as long as we keep all viewpoints represented and the amount of quotation to a minimum. This is, after all, a summary, not an article.

May I suggest, however, that we gain consensus here before we make changes to the article.

To get us started, might I suggest we invite someone from completely outside of this debate, with a rep for even-handedness and no interest in the subject itself, to bring proposals?

If the above is agreeable to all, may I ask Jay, Slim and JPGordon to suggest someone? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested once that certain editors recuse themselves for specific reasons, and was met with a barrage of objetions. Now you are suggesting that every editor who has edited this page recuse him or herself, for no reason? Surely you jest.--Mantanmoreland 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is intended to give us some kind of chance of reaching a form of this page that everyone can live with. What I have proposed is that we discuss before editing, that the changes be suggested by someone all can respect and that we come to a consensus here. I am not suggesting that anyone leave the discussion. In fact, I have no problem with proposals, all long as they can be done without attacking people, something Doright and you seem not to be willing to do.

So, how about it? Are you really interested in a solution? Or do you just want this to go on for years more. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the only one "attacking people," so stop the foot-stomping. It's getting old. Short answer: your proposal is a nonstarter.--Mantanmoreland 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is suggesting a couple of things: (1) that a process be set up to move this to a full discussion of the issues, with changes made by broader consensus; and (2) that a higher level of civility be sought ought. I am not sure what the harm is in trying this for a few weeks. If he is the only one "attacking people", the second point should be both easy and a relief. Sam 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that process has been discussed and isn't acceptable, since it is based upon a version of the article at an arbitrary point in the past selected arbitrarily by the reverend, and because it involves shifting the editing to editors TBA, all for no good reason. As I said, a nonstarter. So let's move on.--Mantanmoreland 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, an element in this proposal was that Jay, Slim and JPGordon propose that person. I also do not believe this proposal, as set out in the latest postings, required that the section be set back in time. As I read it, we could start with the section as is. But, no matter, it sounds as if there is at least one active editor who will not participate, and I do not believe such a process will work without broad participation. Sam 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken's "proposal" is actually a counter-proposal (on the heels of my existing request to Slim) that has the undermining effect of discouraging SLimVirgin from putting forth the considerable effort required to do [this]. I hope she will not be dissuaded.

Despite Sam's suggestion that the reason CTSWyneken's counter-proposal is of "no matter" because of Mantanmoreland appropriate response, the simple fact remains that CTSWyneken's counter-proposal can be nothing more than a charade, if there is no explanation showing how it stops editors from responding as they have in the past to text they find personally offensive, do not agree with or contradict the position of their employer. --Doright 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, there's an ad hominem contrary to WP:CIVIL accusing an editor of charading and again the accusation that an editor is being paid to edit. This is uncalled for, user:Doright. Please stop. Slim Virgin will edit as Slim Virgin sees fit as do all editors on this website. You always stir up trouble.--Drboisclair 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "TBA": "to be assigned"? Since this is Wikipedia editors do not need to be assigned. It is an asset for those who are knowledgeable on a subject to edit that subject's articles. Editors for this article do not need to be assigned: they can just jump in.--Drboisclair 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "to be assigned" or announced and correct on the rest of your comment, which is why this dog won't hunt.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard it as "to be announced". Sam 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial talk can be ambiguous.--Drboisclair 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

These things work themselves out on Wikipedia because as Jayjg has indicated: it is constantly changing as any living thing must.--Drboisclair 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Luther and Antisemitism section

The Luther and Antisemitism section is not merely about what Luther wrote. It's also about what Luther did. For example,

"Luther was not content with verbal abuse. Even before he wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlet, he got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540's he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them form Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."

Also see [this] regarding the taboo title of the section that most editors believe is more accurate despite its troublesome effect on certain sensitivities.

IMO, User:SlimVirgin is among the best writers editing on Wikipedia and a sharp detailed oriented thinker. She is certainly among the most experienced. She previously demonstrated a willingness to do the hard work of integrating relevant citations into beautifully flowing prose, before taking a well-deserved vacation. Perhaps if the editors that repeatedly attack her will demonstrate a modicum of restraint, she may be persuaded to assist. I'll ask. --Doright 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point re actions as well as writings. The cited paragraph in itals should definitely be in this article, however sharply trimmed it may be.--Mantanmoreland 21:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that user:Doright makes a good point above about this section not only being about what Luther wrote but what he did as well. It is for this reason it should be "Luther and the Jews": that would cover comprehensively what the subsection deals with. It would also not be POV as "Luther and Antisemitism" would be. That would have Wikipedia making a judgment. As you can see from the present text: that is a matter of debate. Let the reader make the judgment.--Drboisclair 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you literally over a dozen times (most recently twice in my paragraphs above), '"no one of any note denies Luther's [anti-Semitism]," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e., hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. There is absolutely nothing POV or controversial about this. --Doright 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Doright need not scold me here. He should cease his personal attacks as per WP:CIVIL.--Drboisclair 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Personal attack by Drboisclair from this location--Doright 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, please provide citations to scholars that deny Luther's [anti-Semitism]," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e., hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. --Doright 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind remarks, Doright. :-) I'll try to find time to take another look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of title against consensus

Drboisclair, you may note that there is presently a consensus that "Luther and the Jews" is at best "inaccurate." Please do not unilaterally change the section title to this already rejected version. Please revert yourself. --Doright 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor unilaterally reverted a title of longstanding, and he wants me to revert to his own choice. I don't think so.--Drboisclair 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I find above on current views of what should be done with the title:

MPerel: "Luther's Writings Against the Jews"

Agree: Mantanmoreland, Jayjg

Doright: "Luther and Antisemitism"

CTSWyneken, Drboisclair: "Luther and the Jews"

Agree: Rekleov, also, Sam, though only until consensus is reached through discussion on an alternative

Other views: HumusSapiens: "Luther and the Jews" is NPOV

It is not clear to me where SlimVirgin and JPGordon fall in the above, though each have participated in some discussion.

-- I will let everyone draw their own conclusions on the level of consensus reached. Sam 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Also, please feel free to correct or update if I have missed anything. It was difficult to figure out where people landed in the end. Sam 18:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please compare Sam's "findings" in response to my assertion, there is presently a consensus that "Luther and the Jews" is at best "inaccurate," with the following analysis demonstrating the consensus. In the context of the current discussion the following views were expressed regarding the title: "Luther and the Jews."

• MPerel says: " 'Luther and the Jews' is a misnomer. The section is more precisely about Luther's ugly statements about Jews, which are arguably antisemitic.

• Jayjg says: "The title [Luther and the Jews] is inaccurate and misleading."

• MPerel says: "Yes, I do think 'Luther and Antisemitism' is more accurate than 'Luther and the Jews.' "

• Mantanmoreland Does not support the title, Luther and the Jews

• Sam is against the title, Luther and the Jews, says, "the title should include reference to anti-Semitism," but wants to keep it until pigs fly. :)

• Doright agrees with Mperel, Jayjg, Mantanmoreland and Sam that Luther and the Jews is the wrong title.

• CTSWyneken supports "Luther and the Jews"
• Drboisclair supports "Luther and the Jews"

I will let everyone draw his or her own conclusions on the level of consensus reached regarding the accuracy of the title, "Luther and the Jews." However, IMO if one thinks we are ever going to get a better ratio than 5:2 on this article, one has either not read the history on this article or are waiting for pigs to fly. The single thing that there is the greatest agreement on (by a ratio of 5:2) is that Luther and the Jews is the wrong title. --Doright 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken to count me among your five. I oppose the new title completely at this time. That moves you to 4:3 even by your count of those opposed to the old title (rather than those supporting the new), and I note you left out both Rekleov and HumusSapiens, resulting in 5:4, or 56% to 44%. I also note that you are the only person in the above discussion clearly supporting the title you changed it to. I will let others weigh in on how they wish to be counted; if the answer is not clear when I check in tomorrow, or you or someone else has not reverted, I will revert your edit as premature and submit an RfC. Sam 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken. There seems to be a reading comprehension problem here. You have displayed this several time already in my short experience with you. Unless you are now saying that the title is accurate, you are indeed properly counted among what you call my five. I suggest you spend a little more effort on reading comprehension. I'm not going to initiate an RfC about it. I'm sure with just a little bit more consideration for what each editor is saying, you will do just fine. --Doright 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems to have had quite a day today. Given the animosity visible on the 3RR discussion page, I'm not going to initiate an RfC today on this point. I'm sure the issue of the title will still be here next week. Sam 22:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not to mention Ptmccain, which would make it 5:5. I concur with you, Sam. Is the award posted below suitable for a user page???--Drboisclair 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess arithmetic is not your forte. --Doright 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the below award should only be given at a point when something is truly resolved through civil discussion, and then should go on all participants user pages. I want to invent, with the good inspiration of Mr. Doright, the first award for a collective. I note Ptmccain wasn't involved in the above discussion, so there would have been no reason for Doright to count him. In terms of getting to a resolution, if he, SlimVirgin, or anyone else not included wants to speak up, the goal ought to be broader consensus and participation. Sam 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Luther and the Jews" is just fine. All this bickering over the title is just painfully obvious POV pushing. There are two very long articles on Wikipedia on Luther and the Jews and Luther and Antisemitism. Insisting on trying to duplicate those ariticles on this page is just axe grinding.Ptmccain 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and with an end to all the bickering. Thanks, Sam.--Drboisclair 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that, "with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."[3] I encourage optimism. And, on the day that discussion occurs, I intend to hand out "flying pig" awards all the way around! Sam 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: the "Flying Pig Award!" Admit it everyone, you really want this!

File:Cincinnati-flying-pig.jpg		THE FLYING PIG AWARD
		Awarded to Don Quixote de la Mancha for achieving the inconceivable.

Sam 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Doright, Stop personal attacks

User:Doright removes my response to his personal attacks, and then reverts to put his personal attack back in. His attack needs to be removed. I deny his accusation of vandalizing this page.--Drboisclair 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, no need for histrionics, just provide the requested citations, please. --Doright 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero Scholars deny Luther's hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

A total of zero citations have been provided to scholars that deny Luther's anti-Semitism," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e., hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. There is absolutely nothing POV or controversial about this.

In the absence of such scholarly reference, claims to the contrary can only be understood as the views of the editors making the claim. Do I really need to cite the WP policy that articles should reflect the views of reliable and notable sources and not those of the editors? --Doright 21:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use this section to provide any such citations. Happy hunting.--Doright 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I subscribe to Brecht's statement below. I think that Martin Brecht explains the matter the best that I have seen, and he does not deny that there is antisemitism.--Drboisclair 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a citation. The count is still zero.

Removal of Category:Anti-Semitic people Violates WP:NOR until you cite Scholars

It is a violation of WP:NOR to remove Category:Anti-Semitic people in the absence of citations in the above section titled: "Zero Scholars deny Luther's hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." Repeated violations may bring administrative action. --Doright 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sense Anyone?

Can anyone translate this passage?

There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully because one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer."

If it can't be rendered into standard English, perhaps it should be removed.

Doremifasolatido 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This should read:

There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer.

This is from vol. 3 of Martin Brecht's Luther, p. 351. I will correct it. There should be an "a" before "racial," "because" should be "became," and a "the" should be inserted before "Jews."--Drboisclair 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism

Reverting this article to a shorter more streamlined version seems to make sense to me. But if folks want to keep it longer, then let's include the full story of the repudiation of those remarks by Lutheran Churches. I've put that in here, in chronological order, beginning with the first statement, made in 1983, by The LCMS, followed, over ten years later, by a statement from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's Church Council. I'm not aware if the ELCA, like The LCMS, has actually adopted a formal resolution at a church convention or not, etc.

My feeling is that it is time to move on now. No point in continuing to argue back and forth over the Luther and Antisemitism thing. The section is long enough. I recommend using the separate pages to carry on more detailed discussion of the issues.Ptmccain 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've had a go at rewriting the anti-Semitism section for flow, as Doright suggested. Most of the material that was there is still there, although some of it is now in form of a footnote. I also added some material from Michael Berenbaum's The World Must Know, which is the official publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and can therefore be regarded as authoritative regarding Holocaust historians' views of Luther's role. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am a member of the "cabal" (to quote one regular editor on this page) and with a distant but no doubt contaminating "Jewish heritage," (as the same editor recently pointed out), let me say that I think that this is a good and even-handed rewrite. --Mantanmoreland 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) If you feel it's too long, please feel free to say, or by all means cut it down. I'm happy to hear criticism from others, so long as it's not the usual suspects. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask that you be happy, or at least willing, to hear civil, well-reasoned criticsm from anyone at all. ;) Sam 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's proportional to the rest of the article. The entire article is too long and should be cut down -- and, more importantly, be made to read like something other than a Lutheran Church pamphlet, as it does now in most sections. However, given the brick wall of editors fighting to the death to whitewash Luther on this issue, I think this section should be cut down last.--Mantanmoreland 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the section was still much larger than the three paragraph summary size Jay suggests, I have removed most of the quotations, which can be added to the main article, Martin Luther and the Jews. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You decimated it. Please leave it until others have read it, and then we can see what the consensus is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, you removed all the scholars who say he was an anti-Semite, but retained the ones who said not, and also the church statements! Please don't do anything like that again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it was well over the three paragraphs suggested by Jayg. All of these quotes are or could be inserted into the main article. I'm not committed to the final form of this section as long as all significant POVs are represented. I would prefer no quotes whatsoever here, but one or two from each POV, and short at that would be fine with me.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to set up a sandbox for editing versions? I do think some discussion should be in order before revising, perhaps give it a day or so at least? Sam 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth was the point of reverting it twice? Please leave it for others to decide. It is too long in your opinion, but you did not simply edit it for length; you included your own POV, while getting rid of the other. You keep trying to fork this material off elsewhere, then you edit war on those pages to try to either keep it out entirely, or make the pages so badly written they're unreadable. This has to stop, CTSW, or the dispute resolution process will be activated to make it stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, you are not being intellectually honest, or else you are badly misinformed. Luther's writings about the Jews play a central role in historians' work on the development of German anti-Semitism in the 1930s. There is absolutely no dispute about that. Therefore, for you to add a citation template after the following sentence either shows your own lack of knowledge or your bad faith. "There is no doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed to, or at the very least foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated."

Are you honestly saying you doubt that historians believe Luther's writing either contributed to, or foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis? Please name just one historian who has written about this who believes it neither contributed to nor foreshadowed it. Even your favorite journalist Uwe Siemon-Netto would not deny this.

Also, please explain what you mean by "this section misrepresents and downplays the opinions of Luther Scholars [sic] of different faiths," and say exactly how it can be corrected within our policies. Otherwise you are misusing the tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop ascribing motives to me, assaulting my character and otherwise misrepresenting me or my efforts. I was hoping we could discuss the content here without getting personal.

If you will look at the references you deleted in your second revert, you will note ten scholars dispute the connection between Luther's words and the holocaust. It is not correct for us to say that all historians and all scholars agree with your POV. Also, you challenged other teachings of Luther in this article with {{Fact}} tags, teachings that are well-known. It took me hours to document them. When you are asked to do the same thing, how is that out of line?

As fare as reverting goes, I reverted once. My first edit was to reduce the size of the article, something you have done often here. The only thing I changed beyond deletion was to move from "Lutheran Scholars" to Luther scholars. I then proceeded to document it, but before I got there, you had already reverted it. Now the article makes your POV sound like it is the only scholarly opinion, which it is not. I have raise the neutrality flag and set a fact tag on what I suspect is OR. In addition, moving material is not forking. In fact, it was a suggestion in the recent FA nom.

I feared something like this would happen when I proposed two separate paths to achieve something we can all live with. Much of this would have been avoided if we talked all this out here. I suggested this, even to the extent of asking you, Jayg and JPGordon to suggest an editor with a reputation for even-handedness and no interest in the subject to make suggestions. But it appears that Bold editing is preferred here. So be it. To avoid this escalating into a fight, I'm going away for awhile.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Historians don't dispute that Luther's work at least FORESHADOWED the Nazi's anti-Semitism. Do you know what the word means? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean you didn't revert twice? It's in the history. Look at it. Stop this incessant nonsense! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was going to go away to prevent this from getting further out of hand and will do so after this comment. I looked at the history. this one was an edit to reduce the size of the section, remove what I feel is OR and adjust Lutheran scholar to Luther scholar. This is in no sense a revert. I did not go back to anything.

this one is revert one and the addition of citation information demonstrating that Luther scholars disagree with the causal connection between Luther's words and the Holocaust.

My only other edit today was to add the cite tag and POV flag, since Ir really am not interested in more strife here.

And, please do not question my motivations, belittle me or otherwise disparage me. It is not helpful. The phrase currently suggests that no historian contests the causal connection, what Wallmann calls the "continuity thesis." That is pretty absolute. Please reword it or document it is what I ask.

Now I'll go away. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the dozens of times the 3RR rule has been explained to you and Ptmccain, you still say you don't understand it. Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. You undid my work twice, and pointlessly, as usual. Ergo, you reverted twice.

The sentence does not "suggest ... that no historian contests the causal connection ..." Read it! "There is no doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed to, or at the very least foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated." Note: at the very least foreshadowed. Foreshadow: to bode, to portend, to foresee, to augur. The word does not suggest any causal connection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum book uses the word "foreshadow" to describe the link: "Luther's diatribes are an eerie foreshadowing of Nazi practices four centuries later." (Michael Berenbaum, The World Must Know. p. 8). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, I am sory, the section is awful. You seem to forget that Luther wrote an earlier pamphlet "Why Jesus was born a Jew", in which his view were markedly different. HOw and why did his view change? The reader ought to know.

Dr Zak, I am sorry, the comments are awful. You seem to forget that citations have been provided showing that Luther's views did not markedly change, only his tactics. For example, scholars cite Luther's Spalatin Letters as evidence of Luther's early antisemitism. They actually preceded by 10 years what you refer to as "Luther's earlier pamphlet." Dr Zak, exactly what "views" do you claim "are markedly different" in "Jesus was born a Jew?" One explanation scholars have provided for his change in tactics is frustration that Jews were not abandoning Judaism. And, yes, it's difficult to understand your characterization, "SV, I am sory (sic), the section is awful," as anything other than mean-spirited. --Doright 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is awful because instead of outlining the development, context and reception of ML's views it dives right in: "In his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies, ... Luther spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire. ..." There are a couple more thoughtful posts further down that echo the same sentiment, Sam's contribution further down, for example. I am sorry to see that you are too blinkered to understand this. In any case you shouldn't ascribe motives to people and always remember: spelling flames are soo lame. Dr Zak 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments are awful because instead of stating exactly what "views" you claim, "are markedly different" in "Jesus was born a Jew," you engage in ad hominem rhetoric. I am sorry to see that you are too blinkered to answer the simple and straightforward question. In any case you shouldn't ascribe motives to people and always remember: spelling flames are soo lame. --Doright 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you state that "there is no doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed to, or at the very least foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis". This is a strong claim that needs backing up. You state two things: that there is a consensus amongst experts, and that ML's writings either contributed or foretold the holocaust. What now? They contributed, or they merely foretold? If they contributed, you must back this up with a reference. If Luther's actions merely foreshadowed the Holocaust we must find out if Luther's writings were unusually antisemitic, or if he was merely another voice of his time that accidentally was given greater attention due to his other activities. I know that Erasmus wrote some very nasty pamphlets that are now all but forgotten. The other thing that is missing is the entire history of reception between Luther's time and the 1930s. Dr Zak 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All I did was rewrite it for flow. I didn't add material (except a quote from Michael Berenbaum) or leave much out. I agree that what you're suggesting would be good, but it would make the section much longer, and one person has said it is too long as it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is clear and that it does indeed read much better. Please don't take any of the discussion as an afront to your writing. Having gotten into the middle of it, I'm sure you've thought some about what was there before you came, what was missing, what was redundant, etc. Sam 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And if you read the text, you'll see that there are sources for "contributed to." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak, why don't you simply move one of the references higher, if you want one in that particular section? Why put a citation tag on it instead of doing that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When a series of citation tags were put in the header, I argued for keeping the bulk of them and not getting excited about the issue. This is a work in progress. Let's treat citation tags as suggestions, use them where we think there is an issue, and consider their use a civil request - after all, better a citation tag than a revert war that starts with deleting the uncited statement. Sam 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a stronger assertion: the article says there is consensus that ML's writings contributed to the Holocaust. As far as I can see none of the citations given back that up. Sorry, I am unfamiliar with modern Luther scholarship and wouldn't know where to look in the library. But I can still se where the section is broken. Dr Zak 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat what the sentence says: There is consensus among historians (historians, mind you, not Lutheran scholars, although I think even they would agree with this) that L's work EITHER contributed to OR foreshadowed the actions of the Nazis. The article is therefore not saying there is a consensus that L's work contributed to those actions.

I wasn't suggesting you look in a libary, but simply read the section. The sources are there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that ML foreshadowed the Holocaust (because he was a voice for an attitude that never changed between his time and 1933) is different from saying ML contributed to the Holocaust (because his writings were popular or powerful enough to change peoples' attitude to the Jewish people). There are actually two ways in which ML may have contributed to the Holocaust: through the venom expressed in his writings, or through his theology. (The theological reasoning goes like this: The Jews rejected the Gospel, that is Christ the Redeemer, and are now God's rejected people under the heavy rule of the Law.) As far as history != Luther scholarship goes, any serious discussion of the man must include reception of his ideas. Dr Zak 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By putting both "foreshadowed" and "contributed to" next to each other we miss the crux of the real debate. The question that I read as being debated in Steigmann-Gall, Shirer, Wallman, and Oberman is not whether or not Luther himself was anti-semitic or wrote anti-semitic things, but rather the level and extent of influence of those writings on the development of Nazi anti-semitism. That is, the debate is about the reception of these ideas. (There is a separate debate out there on what anti-Semitism means and the distinction between religious and racial anti-semitism and Luther's place in any schema of anti-Semitism, but that is a separate debate). So, my approach to focusing on this issue would be to separate out the key lines of debate. Sam 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Antisemitism portion is by far the longest section on Martin Luther, and threatens to swallow the whole article. I suspect this is the not-so-hidden agenda of the editors active here. Surely a summary would be appropriate with a link to another article. This argument is what SlimVirgin et al use to wipe out unwelcome contributions to their pet articles, veritably minutes after the additions are made, and without review by sympathetic editors. I would hope that editors would maintain consistency in their policies without regard to their personal likes and dislikes. Some of the efforts here verge on anti-Christian zealotry. Proskauer 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! You've hit the ground running, I see. --Mantanmoreland 16:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what it is about this page that attracts an editor whose main interest seems to be Holocaust denial. [4] The presence of "SlimVirgin et al", no doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and note his "let's toss out the rulebook and start mixing it up" approach to the business at hand. Certainly a subject to be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabal. --Mantanmoreland 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I can take time away from my not-so-hidden agenda of anti-Christian zealotry, and I'm not sure that I can, because there's so much still to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What this new editor is expressing is by no means unique to these talk pages -- "It is the view of those who have a strong POV against Luther and Lutherans" and "POV is acceptable, Lutheran POV is not. That is what is going on here" [5]-- So I suspect he/she will feel right at home. He should stay and will be getting barnstars soon enough.--Mantanmoreland 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of my initial thoughts in reading this. I would suggest that all of us slow down, read it, and discuss it before diving in and editing. There is a lot of material to cover and covering it by a collection of reverts and edit wars will become unbearable quickly, and will drive away people sincerely interested in helping. SlimVirgin, thanks for taking a crack at it, and, of course, subjecting your work to the usual merciless editing that occurs on Wikipedia.

• First, I do think it is too long. We do not need to lose all the work, but I think there are places where the same point, or close variations of the same point, are made multiple times. Some of the work could be moved off to one of the other articles, and some could be moved into the footnotes. I think "On the Jews and their Lies" should be summarized in about two sentances, and discussion of its impact should be given three or four sentances. However, drafting that tightly with all the hands in it and all the raw material here, and some people indicating they want nothing to go, will be very difficult. Still, I think it is what should be done.
• Second, and I know this is a difficult one to reconcile with my first point, there are a couple of points made in the earlier discussion that I think should be added. First, there was drboisclair's point that covering the earlier work and writings is necessary. I think this inevitably leads into a discussion of the context, and what exactly Luther and others were railing about (e.g., the extent to which this was about religion, economics, or ethnicity). I would try to allocate a sentance or two to the broader context and a sentance or two to his earlier works (if someone wants more, I'd put it in another article). Then, part of the same point, Doright indicated earlier that attentions should be given to his actions as well as his writings. There is one snippet in a quote from Paul Johnson, but I think Johnson is very sloppy and accusatory in tone; I think we can do better. I'd give a balanced sentance or two, cited but not quoted, to Luther's personal efforts to have Jews expelled from specific communities.
• Third, "Foreshadowed" gets discussed up above. In all these debates on causation, it's really a pretty good word. Steigmann-Gall has an interesting footnote I cited in another discussion that focuses on particular elements of "On the Jews and Their Lies" that he viewed as a "precursor" for later racialist antisemitism. "Precursor" is also a pretty good word, and is used here. I'd advocate retaining both of them.
• Fourth and most importantly, there is too much language of certainty here; I remember a Professor who remarked when he heard someone preface a sentance with "Undoubtedly" that he always knows that he'd be cross-examining them on what followed. Historians doubt for a living. Likewise, it is difficult to figure out when exactly the active or passive voice is preferable: did the Nazi's "appropriate" or "use" Luther or did Luther "contribute to" or "cause" Nazi anti-semitism; this one is difficult, and it may be that there is no single NPOV choice available. Steigmann-Gall is clear the he focuses most on a non-mainstream Lutheran theology that influenced and was partially adopted and partially changed by certain Nazi leaders. He spends much more time on Lutheran theologies of the early 20th century than on Luther himself, and sees many Nazi leaders getting their ideas and influence elsewhere, whether from Roman Catholic concepts or elsewhere. He obviously takes Luther to task for his writings, but I don't see him as arguing too close a causal link between Luther himself and Nazi anti-semitism. In my mind, too much "blame" to Luther lets any number of other key influences off scott-free. And saying "Lutheran" scholars question the causal link doesn't work, though it is probably a product of having those working hardest on this from another perspective being focused on Lutheran scholarship that they know particularly well. John Oesterreicher, someone I learned of from an editor of this article, wrote "There is no denying that parallels exist. But resemblance is not identity nor does parallelism establish dependence. A post hoc is not always a propter hoc; what follows in time need not have been caused by what preceded it."[6] So there's a Roman Catholic view that rejects causation (of course, he is rejecting it for Catholicism as well). Other good sources with a broad view on causation can be found in the article on the Holocaust, which has an interesting historical precedents discussion. More careful attention to finding balance among the verbs would be useful. I think the question of cause and how it is handled is critical to this argument. I'm not convinced any of us have the best sources (on either "side"); it is worth looking at the Holocaust article for how they handled issues of causation and the sources used there. I should note that I view the debate on "causation" both as what the broader historical debate is all about and as the most contentious issue in this article. And I would contend that if you ask the question of "what caused the Holocaust" or "What caused Nazi anti-Semitism", there are few who would be satisfied just with the answer "Luther", as Luther is simply too distant in time and there are too many intervening actors, though most (but not all), would suggest that a book attempting a broad explaination of the Holocaust or Nazi anti-Semitism ought to devote a chapter to Luther and subsequent Lutheran theology. Note that the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust, which has been worked at very heavily by many people with a lot of knowledge, fails to mention Luther at all, and the article on Anti-Semitism allocated a relatively short paragraph to him.

So, those are my initial thoughts. They're open to change based on discussion. This reads much better than the prior section, and I'd urge a substantive discussion before anyone takes a hand to radical amendments of it. Sam 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (with some minor edits Sam 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC) and Sam 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

By the way, apologies for the length of the post. Maybe I should offer barnstars to anyone who can get through the whole thing. Sam 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I read your post, and I agree with it. Martin Brecht's quote is very clear and critical of Luther. I appreciate the time and effort that Slim Virgin put into this rewrite. With respect for her I would beg to differ on the word "foreshadow" in the respect that this is a judgment of historians placed upon the Luther writings. The greatest mass criminals in the history of the world, the Nazis, hated the Jewish people. They got their hands on Luther's stuff, and they put it into practice. They made it their blueprint for the Krystallnacht and the "Final Solution." Luther wrote in a context of medieval antisemitism that he voiced and intensified. We have to admit too that Luther hated the Jews as well. He hated them along with Romanists, Turks, and the Schwaermerei (Enthusiasts). He was wrong to do this.

The medieval/Renaissance European antisemitism fed into the 19th century antisemitism. Renewed attention on Luther with the advent of the monumental and exhaustive Weimar Ausgabe 1883 (Edition) of Luther's works, the finding of his 1515 Lectures on Romans (found in the early 1900s), and the exclusion of Luther's writings against the Jews in the Munich edition of his works in the 1920s. Hitler and his accomplices blamed the Lutheran Church for burying Luther's writings against the Jews. They found them, and they used them as their blueprint. That is the connection. Why can't the Nazis carry the blame? They did it.

I would have preferred seeing others answer your question, but let me take a stab at it, and forgive me if I go back to very basic points in doing it. First, separate from the underlying substantive question, there is clearly a notable historical debate involving Luther. The debate arises because the Holocaust was a protracted and horrific set of acts on a scale that defies description, and everyone (whether theologian, historian, or just plain old human being)in contemplating that horror inevitably must ask "Why?", and by that I mean not only "Why at all" but also "Why here and now, at this time and place?" In trying to figure out the time and place of its happening, one question raised is "What is distinctive about Germany" and one (but not the only answer) is, "Luther". He had an enormous influence there, and the Lutheran Chruch was strong. And he has some writings that the Nazis explicitly used. In this context, looked at as an important question raised in an important debate, many historians, theologians, journalists and other commentators have found those writings to be a precursor of or to foreshadow the later anti-Semitism of the Nazis, and all I see, without exception, have noted that the writings were "used by" or "appropriated by" the Nazis. The counterpoint of "why can't the Nazis carry the blame? They did it." is one that I see expressed in the Hannah Arendt quote at the beginning of Steigmann-Gall's work, which indicated essentially that "everything the Nazis did was a perversion of what came before"; however, I don't think this quote actually does justice to Arendt's more complex positions and I, at least, find it unsatisfying as a complete answer. Second, on the substantive point, Luther put into circulation highly virulent anti-Semitic writing. This earns him a spot in any discussion of anti-Semitism, though we can debate what that spot is (as, for example, Wallman does, with great care). I believe you have acknowledged this in your quotation of Brecht. Sam 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be done here is summarize everything, and put the bulk in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. If the editors in consensus see fit to change the name of that article to Martin Luther and Antisemitism, it might fit the consensus here with the title "Luther and Antisemitism". Let's work together for consensus and understanding for the benefit of a world that is filled with war and strife.--Drboisclair 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I appreciate your quoting my hero Monsignor Oesterreicher, of sainted memory, but you left out the sentence immediately following the quote you cited: "Though I am convinced that it was apostates from Christianity, and not Christian teachers and writers -- no matter how distorted, mistaken, and deplorable their views were -- who handed the deadly poison to the Nazis, I readily admit that there is a common element that binds the hostility of recent days to the hostility of the remote past." In any event the monsignor, bless his soul, was not making any specific reference to Luther, and also he is not a historian and SlimVirgin was citing historians.

Apart from the above I am not persuaded, frankly, that there is anything wrong in the summary. Are there any historians who do indeed say that Luther's doctrines did not foreshadow or was a precurser to....etc.? I am not aware of a single one, and I am sure that if there was one it would have been cited a long time ago. I am sure that the dedicated Holocaust-denier editor who just joined us could come up with one, if one existed. Also remember that the phrase may have is in that sentence.

I just don't see much merit in the rest of your arguments, Sam, to tell you the truth. I do appreciate the effort you put into it and don't mind the length if you don't.--

Oh -- one other point, re length. According to very rough calculus of Word for Windows, counting various things one doesn't ordinarily count, it comes to 1900 words vs 10,200 or so for the article as a whole. Both word counts inflated, do remember. This strikes me as not out of proportion for an article that goes on at great length on subjects of no interest to anyone outside the Lutheran Church. The entire article needs to be cut down, not just this section. As I said earlier I think this one should be cut down the last.

Mantanmoreland 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment on Sam's thoughts but would just like to point out briefly that by the above word count, the Antisemitism portion is nearly 20% of the total and growing. This 20% represents mostly an anomaly (I get the impression) that occured later in the life of one of the largest figures in world religious history. Do you think it accounts for 20% of his life, his teachings, his impact? I guess it depends on perspective. Respectfully, Proskauer 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened it a little, and now I get 1697 words for that section, and 13,230 for the whole article, including the footnotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I will likely not get a chance to take a hard look until later or tomorrow, but just to clarify two points for M: I was advocating the language of "foreshadow" or "precursor", not arguing against it. We will have a separate conversation at some point on Oesterreicher; I disagree with the notion that it was only "apostates from Christianity" who handed the Nazis the poison (indeed, more than handed), so that is why I did not quote that sentance. But there is also much more in his article worth thinking on, so I did link it. Sam 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought the unquoted comments were very much on point conerning this discussion we are having. What you did quote was aimed at defending the Roman Catholic Church -- something he did quite strenuously even when it meant alienating his many Jewish friends.

Re the length -- to be clear, in my view the segment requires no cutting. It is certainly proportional to the article as well as offsetting the generally reverential tone of the article.--Mantanmoreland 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Luther and Antisemitism section is 10% of the total words in the article body. Methodology: (1) Cut and paste the article as displayed into MS Word starting at the top and going down to (but not including) the section titled "See also." This yields 8813 words according to MS Word "word count."(2) Cut and paste the Luther and Antisemitism section as displayed into MS Word. This yields 914 words according to MS Word "word count."

Result: 10%.

So what percent is this section suppose to be? And, what other sections are going to have quotas established?--67.22.34.54 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. And please, let's not get all fetishistic about "3 paragraphs", it's just something I said off the top of my head, I hadn't done a detailed analysis of the article contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Length of the "Jews" Section

I've now seen several requests to reduce the length of this section. Pehaps it would be good to isolate this issue and see if we can come to a consensus on it.

Since we do have a main article on this subject, and since the FA nom recommended summary style, I believe this section should be no more the three or four paragraphs in lengh. I've seen some figures like 10%, 20% bandied about, etc.

Setting aside the content question for the moment, what would be ideal, given the article is still missing a few topics and we are likely to want to create other subarticles? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You said you were going to take a break, and I think you really need to, so that others can try to get this article sorted out without the usual protracted disputes, which hamper all progess. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am taking a break. Just looking in. I'm not going to edit much, if any, today, nor did I edit much yesterday afternoon.

On the other hand, the implication was not that I was going to let others sort things out, especially when those others include editors who have helped to sustain the strife here.

Since this discussion is going on, I thought it would be helpful to ask this question. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could talk first about how some of the other sections could be cut? There's no reason the section about Jews should be singled out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This question has import for the rest of the article, too. If we settle on a length here, we can use that model elsewhere in the article. In other places, we also have the matter of deciding on names for at least a half-dozen new main articles. So, I think this question can be resolved and applied throughout. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be that the cart is before the horse in some senses. There are two reasons to cut: to improve flow and avoid redundancy, and to make it more clearly summary style. But if we're cutting without discussing the substantive questions first, we are cutting blind. I will, later today, set up a sandbox and show some cuts I think could help improve flow and avoid redundancy. I'd really like to see the causation issues,that I think are at the heart of the dispute, discussed calmly though to bring out what works and what needs more work. Sam 11:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, could you please begin by working to cut or improve some of the other sections first? I am a little tired of the section about Jews being singled out for special treatment, and it has to stop. The rest of the article is written as though paying homage to Luther, so it would be very helpful if you could make suggestions for how to deal with that first. Once that's sorted out, we can return to the section about the Jews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You will find that I have been going through the other sections systematically, both doing some reading on the topics and making edits to adjust what I view as unsupported or biased. I have added discussion here as I do it. I first went through the section on the three major tracts (Nobility, Babylonian Captivity, and Freedom of a Christian), made some comments and introduced discussion. Not all the changes have been made, but the issues have been discussed, with CTSW doing a fair bit of work himself to justify citations and analysis. Then I went through the section on indulgences, and did the same. Again, CTSW did some spade work in response to my questions. I also put forward a proposal for the lead, which you yourself, as well as others indicated was better, but which stalled when Mantanmoreland complained that it did not adequately deal with anti-Semitism and I asked him for specifics so I could address his complaint. I would love to solve the issues raised in the intro, as well, but couldn't get the substantive issue discussed there, either.

However, you have just done a major rewrite of this section and everyone's attention is focused here. Let's stay focused. I am happy to go back to the other section, when it is done, but I think your rewrite is deserving of full discussion and attention. Sam 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that point cannot be underlined too much. The entire article is too long, and except for the Luther and anti-Semitism section, the article reads for the most part as if it had been written by Lutheran clergyman for the benefit of their coreligionists. That tone needs to go, and an objective viewpoint is needed throughout. Entire sections are of interest only to Lutherans and should be combined or eliminated entirely, and the section on Luther's family should be drastically cut. Compare to Moses, a shorter and far more objective article on a far more consequential figure in western civilization.

the article reads for the most part as if it had been written by Lutheran clergyman for the benefit of their coreligionists. Indeed it does, for the most obvious of reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Moses article, you can see that the section on Moses in Jewish though is all of one sentence.[7]. Compare that to the microscopic, lengthy, even rhapsodic examination in this article. Much of what there is on Moses is far from positive. Compare the tone of that article to this one.

So let's stop all the one-sided bickering over the "length of the Jewish section" and cut this overblown, hagiographic article, beginning with the sections on his family and theology. I think that all of the sections with theologic content should be drastically boiled down and reorganized. --Mantanmoreland 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sam's discussion in the section directly above, I should have said that while I'm not qualified as a religious historian his ideas sound perfectly reasonable. Here, I would just like to point out that once the tide is turning, SlimVirgin starts issuing pleas of "Let's be be reasonable and put this whole matter aside" or "Let's cut down the rest of the article first." Whose interests would that serve? I don't see the article as being particularly hagiographic as it stands, and about this whole idea that the "entire article is too long", it doesn't seem all that much longer than the article on Menachem Begin, for example. Interesting, as well, that when SlimVirgin did her word count, she INCLUDED THE FOOTNOTES. I've never heard that footnotes should be treated as part of the text -- they are an adjunct to the text. And surely some of you technical wizards can do a comparative study of word counts with other articles. Proskauer 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me say I have absolutely no intention of ever counting words; I focused on summary style and redundancy. If we can get some reasonable discussion going on the substance of the section, I, at least, would be quite happy to live with something significantly longer than I would use if I were writing my own article. The substance is just much more important than length. Sam 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have said that word counts are a last resort. I'm supporting anyone who wishes to design this article according to substance and principle, which I believe you are trying to do. Sometimes a global positioning device is helpful, but it never is a guide to appreciation of the landscape. No one is talking about quotas here, but how do you counter the claims of "too long!, too long!" when it is patently NOT too long?Proskauer 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little like Holocaust denial isn't it? Well, one must do one's best I suppose. Thanks for your thoughts and again I welcome you to this article.--Mantanmoreland 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop characterizing the observations of other editors? This is the kind of language that sets off flame wars. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you on holiday? Your presence here is disruptive and the article would benefit from your not being.--Mantanmoreland 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mantanmoreland. Of course you're the one saying it's hagiographic and too long. Personally, I'm a believer in concrete facts. I like to get my bearings when out in the middle of a great big ocean, especially when a squall is close on the horizon. Again, I don't see this article as being too long, but I think you might articulate why you find it so. Your suggestion above sounds like "Let's talk about Shakespeare, but heaven forbid we talk about his literature." But I'm attempting merely to add perspective, not substance.

Proskauer 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. Your contributions to Holocaust denial on Wikipedia precede you.--Mantanmoreland 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

MyGod! A shot across the foreward bow, sir. ;-) Proskauer 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And you arrived on this page with both forward guns blazing! I appreciate your devotion to fighting "anti-Christian zealotry." You are in a congenial environment.--Mantanmoreland 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

People feel free to deny whatever they like; that the Holocaust occured, that gas chambers were used, that Martin Luther wrote an anti-Semitic diatribe. That's History Denial for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Flag and "Jews" section morotorium

This section is unbalanced in many ways, some of them outlined in above discussions. I do not think it can be fixed in the current climate. Please leave it in place until all editors interested in this issue can be here to discuss it.

May I suggest that we simply all agree to put the section aside for a week or two and come back later, hopefully with a disinterested party to help sort things out? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a disruptive tag pushing your POV. If anything this is the only section that even approaches neutrality. The rest of the article reads like a pamphlet and much of it makes no pretense to neutral POV. But I am not going to slap on NPOV tags to make a point as you have done here.--Mantanmoreland 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, would you please show your good faith and either withdraw from this article for a few days to give everyone, and yourself, a breather, or else help to decide what should be done with the other sections first? Either way, the focus on the section about the Jews is inappropriate, and somewhat worrying given what it has just attracted to the page. Also, please stop reverting and slapping POV tages on anything you don't like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, did you not want discussion of this when you submitted it? As I noted above, I've done considerable work on the other sections, but think this is the section that really needs discussion, and this is the section where a dramatic change has just been made. I've raised a number of points above. Could I ask you to take a look at them and give me your thoughts? (I do thank you for the work on shortening, which was certainly responsive to the comments, including CTSW's). Sam 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (last parenthetical added - Sam 17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

There indeed has been a discussion, quite an extensive one. It is a typical discussion on this page replete with foot-stomping, a new participant drawn here from Holocaust-denial-land, and WP:POINT tags to disrupt things generally. --Mantanmoreland 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss one of the other sections first, and then go back to this one. This section, in all its various forms (long and short) has been under sustained attack by the same two or three users for many months. They will only be happy when it is as short, unobtrusive, and uncritical of Luther as they can get away with; and were it up to them, I don't think the section would exist at all. Therefore, as a sign of good faith, it would be good to see some of the other sections being placed under the same scrutiny, if only for a few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, I've worked on those, and have requested input when working on them, receiving it only from CTSW. You've proposed some language, let's look at it. If you do not want to defend it, then CTSW is perfectly right to post a sticker on it. I'd suggest we hold off on that until you and others have a chance to speak to the substantive issues. Sam 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW is not perfectly right to stick a tag on it, because it's what he's been doing for months. Until it stops, together with the incessant complaints and reverting, there will be no harmony on this page, and no progress. I repeat: please begin with one of the other sections. There are several that are too long, and all have too reverential a tone about them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a one way street. If everyone will agree to stay away from the subject, I will. If it is going to be discussed, I will also. But I'm not going to sit by so that editors can add the points of view they like and delete the ones they don't, show disrepect to me and others. So, how about it? A moratorium? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Only problem is that this article cannot be edited harmoniously, and turned into something other than a church pamphlet, because of your constant disruptions and frivolous complaints, and because of the relentless and determined POV pushing by yourself and a couple of other editors. See, that's the problem CTS. It is not a two way street.--Mantanmoreland 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this; why doesn't everyone who is a paid employee of the Lutheran church stop editing, and then we'll see if we can whip this article into some sort of neutral shape? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. This situation has gone on for too long and has been very disruptive. It would be very much appreciated if those editors could step back, even if only for a few days, to allow other editors to discuss how to proceed with these articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the Lutheran Church, but can't get any discussion of points I have raised, except from the Lutheran clergy editors, so I really have doubts such a course will be useful. Likewise, today there seems to be great interest in editing other sections, yet none of you has had any interest in the discussion of indulgences, the writings on Freedom of a Christian, or the redraft I did of the intro, all of which have been active over the last two weeks - why the sudden animated interest in discussing anything but the writing you have just added? Sam 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason you have difficulty raising interest from others is because of the high burn-out rate of editors on these pages, this and the other two related ones. People try to deal with it for a couple of weeks and then have to retreat, and as a direct result of the behavior of the editors connected to the Lutheran Church. Offhand, I can think of six people who have had to withdraw. This is why the very best solution would be for anyone who is employed by the Lutheran Church, but particularly CTSW, to step back for a period to allow the rest of us to work out how to deal with these articles: content, length, and which material should go where, because Mantan is right: some of them do read like articles the Lutheran Church might have published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I have found CTSW responsive, even if of strong opinions, when approached civily. I have also found him willing to make his positions clear and discuss them. Likewise, I have found drboisclair willing to pick up and read a book originally cited by Doright after some reasonable discussion of it. While I have run into some cases where there was some stubbornness about editing from one of the Lutheran clergy editing, both CTSW and drboisclair have been clear about their reasons for preferring language and ready to discuss those reasons. I have run into far more subbornness from others here, and I have had enormmous difficulty getting others to provide sufficient specificity to aid in editing, despite repeated requests. I also note that CTSW has suggested alternative ways to resolve disputes which have been rejected. While I cannot talk of the history before I arrived here a couple weeks ago, I can speak tomy own reception, and can say any burnout being experienced is not as a result of their activities. Sam 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, with respect, it isn't possible to judge what these pages have been like after only two weeks of it. It has been going on for the best part of a year. I'll take a look to find out how long exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not quite a year; eight months, since November 2005, and there may have been stuff before that that I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, and without making any assumptions about what has gone on in the past, we are at a point when I believe they are willing to engage in a sensible discussion, and the question which you should answer is whether you are also at that point as well or not. Because, ultimately, this will only be resolved through that discussion. I expect it will not be easy, in particular I have heard references to personal email attacks that undoubtedly created their own wounds that need to heal, and I expect that may make it difficult as well. However, as a friend of mine, a man who once headed up the local anti-Defamation League, once said: It is important to speak out, but after a few years it's also pretty easy. It's more important, and more difficult, to speak with. (No tape recorder present, so no cites or sources other than me). Sam 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In some ways it's a distinct honor to be made a pariah in this group. Frankly, I wouldn't suggest that anyone who wants to retain his or her respectability have anything to do with me. However, the willingness and even eagerness, which some people have demonstrated, to dismiss me with a label (in other contexts this would be bigotry) is indicative of their character, not mine. Indeed, I fully expected this reaction. One problem that could have arisen would have been a "guilt by association" charge against the identifiable Lutherans. Instead, what I hope has been achieved is that I set the standard for extreme viewpoints in opposition to the rigid and defiant accusations of "anti-semitism". In other words, compared to a holocaust denier, even a Lutheran looks pretty reasonable to a group of editors whose vested interest lies in making a tag of anti-semitism stick, and stick like hell, on one of the major figures in Christian faith. I see my job here as pointing out hypocracy, and my policy is to make my efforts plain. I do not regard myself as a Christian BTW. Again, I suggest that no one respond to this except negatively. Proskauer 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to respond to your remark. It is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:GF for editors here to label you as anything, but ... given your edit history and your involvement on pages previously mentioned, I do appreciate you make no claim here to be a Christian. We Christians, and Jews, value the commandment that we are not bear false witness and so anyone attempting to deny the Nazi campaign to exterminate the Jews in my opinion guilty of a grave sin indeed, not to mention utterly incomprehensible stupidity on a titanic scale indeed.Ptmccain 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There was once a guy who got a flat on his left rear tire right outside a mental institution. He got out of the car, positioned the jack, removed the lug nuts, and put them all in the hubcap near him. As he got the spare out of the trunk, a car swerved too close and flipped the hubcap across the road, scattering all the lug nuts to far flung fields. The man could find but one. Standing there with one lug nut in his hand, he asked himself, "Now what do I do?" As if sent from above, a voice yelled out, "Take one nut off each of the other wheels, and you'll have four on each wheel, enough to get you to the nearest service station." (5-lug wheels they were in those days) The man turned around and looked through the fence to the grounds of the mental institution. He saw a stranger in ordinary clothes. He said, "Hey, thanks" and then asked "Say, uh, do you, uh, live in there?" The inmate answered: "Sure I do. I may be crazy but I'm not stupid!" Proskauer 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism POV Corrections

The reedit of the section was faulty in that persons who are not Lutheran are identified as Lutheran. Persons who are historians are not described as such. Jewish scholars are not identified as Jewish. Interestingly, the majority of historians and scholars cited in the re-edit form are Jewish, but the edit responsible did not identify them as such, but mistakenly tried to identify scholars as Lutheran, when some of them are not. Note, for example, how the editor identifies Siemon-Netto as "Lutheran" but fails to label the various scholars she cites as authorities as "Jewish." If we are going to label people, then it must be done consistently, and not selectively. To do otherwise betrays a POV not appropriate here. Notice also how some historians are labelled as such, while a host of others are dismissively labelled "Lutheran" [amusingly inaccurate in several cases!] and a number of the persons mentioned only in a footnote are historians, but are not described as such. It is clear that what it underway here is an attempt to say that anyone who takea position different from the one embraced by certain editors on this page are not historians, but "Lutherans" and, so it seems, only very begrudgintly labelled as "scholars" while, on the other hand, many of the persons cited here are Jewish, but are not identified as such, and employees of the Holocaust Museum, which clearly advances a certain POV on this specific issue. They are entitled, according to the certain editor, to the title "historian" while, if a person is Lutheran, that person is not in several cases. It is rather silly really. The editor responsible appears to be far too emotionally invested in the issue to edit with any degree of objectivity, but ironically constantly accuses other editors of being incapable of participating at all on the page. There are double-standards at work here which are apparently to any fair-minded observer. The article is clearly not NPOV, and hence the tag is appropriate. My effort is an attempt at fairness. I concur with Sam who notes that the article as prepared by the editor responsible for it is poorly written, repetitive and I would add suffers from turgid writing. Ptmccain 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to note here that my comments on the editor's writing was that there was repetition, likely caused by what she had to work with and the resistance of many to deleting anything, and that it was significantly better written than what came before. Remember, the task she gave herself was to rewrite what was there, and she referenced the specific sections she added. Sam 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I added "Lutheran scholar" to Siemon-Netto was to avoid the "is he a journalist or a historian" debate; I actually thought you'd be pleased with that, because in my view he's not a scholar at all. The reason it's relevant to point out who is a Lutheran scholar is that in many cases, if not all, they are employed by the Lutheran church, so that declaration of an interest is important. However, Jews in virtue of being Jews have no reason to want to pin the Holocaust on Luther, despite what you think. Certainly, they are not being paid to do so, but the Lutheran scholars (some or all) are being paid by Luther-related interests. Working for the Holocaust Museum does not predispose people to have particular views on Luther! You wrote: "Sam ... notes that the article as prepared by the editor responsible for it is poorly written ... and repetitive ..." Where did Sam say that, and who is "the editor responsible"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I encourage to read my first post in this section carefully again. Are you aware of what you did when you worked on the article? You labelled some as historians but not others. You misidentified historians as Lutherans who are not. You stuck the label "Luther scholar" on only one person. You did not identify historians who are chairs of Jewish studies. You need to be consistent if you insist on affixing labels to people. You label as "historians" those who seem to support the POV you are trying to push here, but you do not identify others as historians who are, but happen not to take the same tact that you wish they did on the issues here. That's the point. Can you understand that?Ptmccain 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW had suggested "Luther Scholar" before. It strikes me he is clearly a Luther Scholar, having written his PhD at Boston University on Luther. I have noted before that I'd eliminate all attempts to "credentialize" people, but it looks like I've lost that battle. But do you have any doubt that he is a Luther scholar? On the other front, it does strike me that if you wish to identify people by religion, it is reasonable to do it on all sides. The fact that one is Lutheran does not determine where one works; from prior discussions, I've learned Siemon-Netto is the UPI religion correspondent, for example. I myself would not identify anyone by religion (unless, of course, they have a position that entitles them to speak for a religion in some capacity, such as referring to a Rabbi as Rabbi or a clergyman as The Reverend, but I would instead let their ideas speak for themselves. Sam 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He holds some position with the Lutheran church. But actually, by Lutheran scholar, what I meant was "expert on Luther," and it's incredible that it's causing trouble, because I thought I was doing CTSW and the others a favor by writing that, because they're so keen to have him be a scholar and not a journalist. It's just that most of the Luther specialists are also Lutheran by religion, but it's the fact that they specialize that matters, because it gives them a certain perspective, just as saying that someone is a specialist in the Holocaust will give another perspective, but it's not in virtue of being Jewish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The way round this is simply to give the positions of all the sources e.g. Professor of History at ... But CTSW resisted this, because it made all our sources look good and his look bad, so he revert-warred over that too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as something that might be able to be talked through. I think consistency is a good thing, and don't care where people come out (I've made my minority report on the omission of credentials, to which I'll append a plea perhaps to put all this info in the footnotes instead of body, but, hey, I don't think I'll prevail on that one). Sam 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Siemon-Netto is a journalist and lay preacher with, I believe, a PhD in sociology and theology. He's not notable enough to even be quoted on this page, yet because he holds to the minority view that Luther's work had no impact on the Holocaust, certain editors here insist on including him, and puffing up his qualifications, or alternatively downplaying the qualifications of the real historians who conclude that Luther's writing did indeed have an impact. As for Ptmccain's labelling all sorts of historians as "Jewish", that kind of disruptive WP:POINT must stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What must stop is unwarranted accusations, which violate WP:GF and are only thinly veiled personal attacks. A simple "google" search on many of the historians SlimVirgin cites in her edit of the section clearly reveal who these people are, and what positions they hold. The <bold>point</bold> I am making is that if we are going to label some people then we need to label them all. If we are going to only selectively identify some as "historians" and others historians as merely "scholars" then that is a problem for the POV of this section. Perhaps editor Jayjg needs to read more carefully before he posts a response? That might be helpful.Ptmccain 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I think there was an olive branch in there when he noted in the edit summary "We're getting there..." on the POV issues. It's better than alot of edit summaries I've seen. Sam 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at Ptmccain's latest edit. It's impossible to work with someone like that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that SlimVirgin find a more constructive way to express opinions than by ruling out of hand another editor's work. This editor needs to keep in mind WP:GF and WP:NPA, even as this editor has reminded many others. I'm not aware that Wiki Admins are given exemption from Wiki policies. I'm sure that some Wiki users or editors find these kinds of tactics intimidating. I'm not one of them. I'm not of the mind to find persuasive such tactics, nor is the kind of verbal game playing that goes on on the part of certain editors an effective method in my book. A study of certain editors contributions reveals that such tactics are par for the course when it comes to their participation on Wikipedia. I find it to be only obsfuscating and unhelpful. Perhaps editors who find it necessary to resort to such tactics might wish to reconsider their behavior and stick with WP:GF and WP:NPA, which one would expect, particular for admins, they would highly value.Ptmccain 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rev. McCain is one of the people I've found difficult to communicate with here, but not the only one by any means.

I'm not aware that you have attempted to communicate with me, but I'd be happy to consider your concern that we have communication problems. You actually strike me as reasonable person and I appreciate that you do not respond to everything I post or say with the kind of hostility and rancor that other editors have chosen to employ.Ptmccain 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere there are some reverts and comments or the like in the edit files, but it isn't worth looking them up. I'm sure as a new poster I was being caught in a well-established cross-fire. The key here is, this won't be resolved without taking the charges leveled back and forth and the reverts down a few notches, and trying to work together. The discussions won't always be easy, but they'll have a better chance of going somewhere. Thanks for considering me reasonable. Sam 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (amended to add last three sentances, Sam 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

But, when we choose to work on this article we choose to work with the full cast. Do you have another way to solve this other than reverting and re-reverting (which has failed for 8 months and made everyone miserable) or giving it the old Wiki let's-assume-good-faith-of-absolutely-everyone-try-to-talk-it-through approach (which I'd like to try, assuming good faith and letting even the medium size jabs go, even if we have to paste phony smiles on our faces til it hurts)? The only third choice I see is the Wiki dispute resolution procedures, which, in the end, I believe, are likely to come to the talking it through approach. Sam 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that we simply present the issues and stop trying to bias the reader toward one point of view or another on the issue. I believe the article as I worked on it is in better shape and is headed the right direction. Trying to insist on stating that "every historian" takes a certain position is counter-productive. Here's the other point that certain editors continue to miss. There are two whole articles on Wikipedia with a load of details on Luther and Antisemitism and "The Jews and Their Lies" etc. That's the place for these extended quotes and debates. Here, in this article, we need only a short summary of the situation and the various points of view. That would take care of a lot of this nonsensical bickering.Ptmccain 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I have an answer to my previous question, please? Ptmccain wrote: "Sam ... notes that the article as prepared by the editor responsible for it is poorly written ... and repetitive ..." Did Sam say this, and if so where and who was the "editor responsible"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd answered up above, right after his initial post. What I said was that I did think as written it was repetitive, but that was because of the material you had to work with and the general project of trying to retain what was there, and that it was much better written than what came before. I'm pretty certain you're the "editor responsible". You write just fine, and everyone should thank you for taking a shot at it. Sam 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The original comment at the top of this comment section is such utter nonsense. Siemon-Netto was originally identified in the article as a Lutheran lay theologian by one of CTS's edits, so calling him a "Lutheran scholar" was merely another form of saying that and also an overstatement, as SV has pointed also. More to the point, I am not aware of the religious affiliations of any of the bona fide, genuine historians who were quoted. I do know that Shirer was Protestant, because he says so in Rise and Fall.

So let's stop the nonsense and not be deiverted from the primary issue, which is that any attempt to make this article neutral are thwarted by a small number of editors who identify themselves as being employed in various capacities by the Lutheran Church.

As for Sam's point that such-and-such an editor is "reasonable." Sam, been there, done that. See the Barnstar on my user page? I was once the fair-haired boy of those same editors, but it all changed when I disagreed with them. Then I was the subject of a sustained campaign of harassment, including constant villifying remarks and frivolous complaints, with one editor vandalizing my user page and the articles I created. The same thing happened to Doright for weeks and weeks, then the guns were turned on me and now on other editors.

That kind of behavior explains why Jayjg suggested that editors who are employed by the Lutheran Church should step away from this article. I had previously made a similar suggestion, though I aimed it at a specific editor who made anti-Semitic comments to me in an email (this was back when I was a "fair haired boy" just as you are now). The aim is to create a climate that will make it possible to edit this article without a constant bombardment of harassment.--Mantanmoreland 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kindly re-read the comments, and then see the comments below on labelling. The issue is not just about Netto. There is an inconsistency in the way people are labelled. Some are identified by their affiliations, others are not. Historians are sometimes labelled as historians, while others are not [Bainton, Rupp, etc.]. Some are labelled as Lutheran, while others are not identified in that manner when they are, in one notable case, a Rabbi. The term "historian and scholar" is applied inconsistently in the article. Please stop trying to make this a Netto issue. That is not my point, only a part of a much larger problem with the article, which frankly is easily fixed either by removing all labels or by being consistent in how they are applied. I see no reason to continue a rancorous debate on these points, which are easily taken care of, one way or the other.Ptmccain 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Labelling Issues in the "Luther and Antisemitism" section

The article presently states: "Some Lutheran scholars disagree with the attempt to link Luther's work causally to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, arguing that it is too simplistic an analysis." The footnote directs the reader to a number of individuals, a few of whom are not Lutheran. The other error is that of these same individuals a number are historians, but only the word "scholar" is used to describe them, whereas elsewhere in the article the word "historian" is used to describe other individuals. The way in which people are labelled in this article is inconsistent and needs attention. Ptmccain 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem in describing the "minority viewpoint" but we need to label historians and scholars as such since others are so labelled in the article. It is the labelling inconsistencies in the article that are where many would perceive there to be POV pushing. It may not even be intended and folks doing it may not even be aware of it, but when one person is labelled a "historian" and a "scholar" and another is not, though they are both historians and scholars, that tends to skew the perspective. I propose that we go with the minority viewpoint line and simply say:

<block>There are other historians and scholars who express a minority viewpoint on this issue...</block>

That way you let the reader know it ia minority viewpoint but you don't try to slant things so the reader is left with the impression that "historians and scholars" say "A" while others say "B." And, to return to the point I've been trying to make, if we choose to label some as "German" or "Lutheran" then for the sake of the integrity of the article, let's make it clear where others quuoted in the article serve and what they do, for instance, Bernbaum is described by Wiki as a "Jewish-American scholar" but he is not a historian, Rose is head of Jewish studies at an institution, shouldnt't we identify them in this fashion, and others as well, if others are identified in similar fashion? If the article insists on identifying Netto as a Lutheran journalist and lay theologian, shouldn't the other gentleman be identified as a Jewish rabbi and Holocaust scholar? Ptmccain 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example of a neutral POV article on a major religious figure

I had previously mentioned Moses. Another would be Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), who was beatified -- but you wouldn't know it by the neutral tone of this article. This is the kind of tone that Martin Luther should have.

The non-hagiographic, neutral, dispassionate tone of these article is the norm on Wiki. Martin Luther is an exception. Reading some of the comments here, you'd thing it was ht other way around.--Mantanmoreland 12:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

When I read the Ignatius article, I learn that he was beatified in the opening paragraph; also that he was a gifted spiritual director and a famous compiler. I doubt none of these things, but do not see a markedly different tone. You've been asked for specifics repeatedly, and also rejected an offer to have an agreeable third party review and work on the edits. Please note, some specifics would still be welcome - perhaps you'd like to choose a short section, as I have now done for Freedom of a Christian, Indulgences, and the Intro, and go through it with care to show what you would do to change the tone? Sam 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see any dramatic and visible difference in tone I'm not going to waste any effort trying to convince you.--Mantanmoreland 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to amend my previous remarks: This article doesn't read like a church pamphlet. It reads like a church encyclopedia.--Mantanmoreland 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia: Properly Sourced?

Someone has told me that most of this article is copied from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. As the communication was private, I won't say more than that, but if it's true, we may have to rewrite the article. Although the material is public domain, it's not appropriate to reproduce material from a religious text as though it's our own. I've tried to find a copy of the encyclopedia's article; some or all of it is supposed to be online, but no luck so far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No doubt SlimVirgin simply failed to check the page history, for if she had I'm sure she would not have levelled this accusation, knowing how committed she is to WP:GF and WP:NPA. A simple mistake on her part, no doubt, but unfortunately an error that she has not yet acknowledged, or corrected. Since admins are supposed to be role models of Wiki standards of behavior, I'm suprised she has not done that yet. No doubt she is very busy in many other things on Wikipedia, but levelling an accusation of Plagiarism is of such a serious and grave nature that the one levelling the charge inappropriately would be held libel in any court of law for such an accusation should it be proven to be untrue, which in this case it has. The accusation of plagiarism is a very serious one and it is unfortunate that it was made in the first place, and even more unfortunate that it has not been corrected after the individuals making this charge were shown their error. I respectfully suggest that this be done as an way of maintaining WP:CIVIL, WP:GF and to prevent anyone from thinking we have here a violation of WP:NPA.Ptmccain 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is online, in full.[8] I just skimmed it, don't have time for a full perusal, though someone should do so.

This article:

Widening breach

There was no longer hope of peace. Luther's writings were now circulated widely, reaching France, England, and Italy as early as 1519. Students thronged to Wittenberg to hear Luther, who had been joined by Melanchthon in 1518, and now published his shorter commentary on Galatians and his Work on the Psalms,[38] while at the same time, he received deputations from Italy and from the Utraquists of Bohemia.

These controversies necessarily led Luther to develop his theses further, and in his Sermon on the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, he set forth the significance of the Lord's Supper that it is for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of faith for those who receive it, he advocated that a council be called to restore communion in both kinds for the laity.

The Lutheran concept of the Church, wholly based on immediate relation to the Christ who gives himself in preaching and the sacraments, was already developed in his On the Papacy in Rome, [39] a reply to the attack of the Franciscan Augustin von Alveld at Leipzig (June 1520); while in his Sermon on Good Works,[40] delivered in the spring of 1520, he controverted the Catholic doctrine of good works and works of supererogation, holding that the works of the believer are truly good in any secular calling (vocation) ordered of God.

The encyclopedia:

There was no longer hope of peace. His writings were now circulated most widely, reaching France, England, and Italy as early as 1619, and students thronged to Wittenberg to hear Luther, who had been joined by Melanchthon in 1518, and now published his shorter commentary on Galatians and his Operationes in Psalmos, while at the same time he received deputations from Italy and from the Utraquists of Bohemia. These controversies necessarily led Luther to develop his doctrines further, and in his Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament des Leichnams Christi (1519) he set forth the significance of the Eucharist (see Lord's Supper, II.,2, § 5, IV., 1, §§ 1-2), interpreting the transubstantiation of the bread as the transformation of the faithful into the spiritual body of Christ, i.e., into fellowship with Christ and the Saints. The basal concept of the Eucharist, moreover, according to him, it the forgiveness of sins; and his entire theory is closely connected with his mystic view of the all-embracing participation in salvation shared by the believer with Christ and his Church. At the same time, he advocated that a council be called to restore communion in both kinds, and denied the doctrine of seven sacraments (letter of Dec. 18, 1519). He likewise stripped the priesthood of all meaning other than the general priesthood taught in the Bible, and cast doubt on the entire doctrine of purgatory. The Lutheran concept of the Church (see Church, the Christian, IV., § 2), wholly based on immediate relation to the Christ who gives himself in preaching and the sacraments, war already developed in his Von dem Papsttum zu Rom, a reply to the attack of the Franciscan Alveld at Leipsic (June, 1520); while in his Sermon von guten Werken, delivered in the spring of 1520, he controverted the Roman Catholic doctrine of good works and works of supererogation, holding that the works of the believer are truly good in any secular calling ordered of God. [9]

Convenient that it is online, from a plagiarism standpoint.--Mantanmoreland 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mantan. Perhaps to save time, the editor(s) who copied it could say which other parts of our article are copied from this encyclopedia, or from any other source. Even if something is in the public domain, to copy it without acknowledgement is still plagiarism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I should add that I don't mean to make light of the plagiarism here. This is serious business. It could result in terrible publicity that could be extremely damaging to the project. Rather than force other editors to go to a lot of trouble, the editor responsible for the plagiarism should come forward and identify the plagiarized sections.--Mantanmoreland 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a few posts in the archives that admit to the plagiarism, one of which said that "sources" (plural) had been copied verbatim. Would whoever has copied material please let us know which sections and from which texts, please? Plagiarism is very much frowned upon in Wikipedia. We're allowed to copy public domain material without committing a copyright violation, but we have to say in the text that we've done so. I think someone got confused, and believed that absence of copyright = absence of plagiarism, but of course the two issues are entirely separate; the first is a legal thing and the second to do with intellectual honesty. SlimVirgin^(talk) 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I've been asked, I'll respond. Noticing the source tags at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, I seeded the article with material from Schaaf-Herzog and marked it with the {{Schaff-Herzog}} template. I also added a reference to the volume in the bibliography. I invited others to adjust the material, which has been done to some extent already. The three sections involved are the three 1520 tracts, the liturgy and the eucharistic controversies sections.

Since then, the tag was deleted by accident in a revision by Rekleov. Since the source was identified and the purpose was to provide a place to begin in writing these sections, there is no plagiarism involved and I would appreciate an apology for having it labeled as such.

Having seen the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles and seen text extracted in similar fashion elsewhere in Wikipedia, I was under the impression it was standard practice. If not, I apologize for getting that impression from Wikipedia namespace. If this is an issue, I'm mystified as to why it has not come up before, since I have been quite open with it, and, if I don't miss my guess, recently mentioned it in discussion with Sam about the Freedom of a Christian section.

As usual, I am, of course, perfectly willing to see these sections rewritten. If not, I'll go back to see what exactly remains of the Schaff material reword it, cite it specifically or remove it.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, thank for this note. I found it interesting to review the various sources that Wiki reconizes, etc. at [[10]]. I too hope you will receive an apology for the inappropriate accusation of Plagiarism. It could be that folks were simply caught up in the emotions of the moment and used this term without first checking their facts or the history of the use of Sc.Hrz. in this article. I think we can assume that to be the case. Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work. Ptmccain 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

When someone asked you to cite Schaaf, you wrote: "At this time, with all the editing that has recently been done, it will be quite a chore to add citations to Schaaf back in. My point in bringing it up was to show that we have not just made up a lot of this material. We've often copied it verbatum [sic] from sources in the public domain.--CTSWyneken 11:16, 19 September 2005(UTC)"

You said "sources," suggesting there is other copied material in there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the Schaaf material, I have not added any material beyond a quotation, which I have sourced as well. Mind if I put the template back? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think it makes sense to assume good faith here, as you can see from CTSW's explanation and his openness in discussing this in the past, as well as from the fact that the Encylopedia itself is linked from the page. I do think if this had been raised without the "tone" and charges it would have been quickly and easily resolved. I should have caught it when we were discussing the issues on Freedom of a Christian, having been criticized for being the IP police on Wikipedia in the past. An easy solution for the time being is to return the tag the bottom of the article in a manner similar to those using the Catholic Encyclopedia or other public domain encylopedias (E.g., portions of this article ...), as CTSW had done initially and as I understand the policy to be on Wikipedia. At the same time, always better to know where stuff comes from, especially when we know we're going to discuss it for some time to come, and if multiple such tags are necessary, let's do it. Sam 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank Sam for providing a good model of the implementation of WP:GF and WP:CIVIL, thanks for doing that Sam. I'm learning a lot from your style here. Re. the alleged "plagiarism" ... the issue is easily addressed. Simply provide proper citations. No need to turn this into yet another rancorou exchange as long as we all simply assume good faith and be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.Ptmccain 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still can't find the comment Sam made about the writing being repetitive. Sorry to ask you again, Sam, but could you point it out to me, your original comment, not your reply to Ptmccain's summary of it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will find it, though I warn you I haven't figured out that internal link thing so I'm probably going to give you a header its under and a description of where it is. Sam 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it is - it does not use the word repetitive per se -- "We do not need to lose all the work, but I think there are places where the same point, or close variations of the same point, are made multiple times." -- this is in the first bullet of my long post about 35(!) posts down in the section labelled "rewrite". Thanks. Sam 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having just begun to participate here I wanted to thank CTSW for his frank discussion of the SH issue - it really helped me understand what is going on --Trödel 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A Golden Opportunity

OK, I believe that we are at a point on this article where all of the editors whom many view here as having resisted a fully blown discussion of anti-semitism are listening, paying attention, and ready to consider some of these points with care. To those advocating this section, I ask, can you identify one point, one issue, maybe two or three sentances on which you'd like to hold a civil discussion, where you can put forth and defend your sources and explain why your points are important, in as civil a manner as possible? I'm leaving the space below for you to propose and define a discussion of your choice. If you'd like to discuss the pros or cons or responding to this suggestion, or if you want to tell me you have no interest in this, I ask that you post your comments in the Section Identified Below. Sam 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we have a golden opportunity to 86 the sections that were glommed off a religious encyclopedia, and to write them -- in a much boiled down fashion, by no means not necessarily with the same structure and sections, and with the objective, neutral tone that Slim used in Luther and Anti-Semitism. Let's focus on the bad stuff, not the one good section.--Mantanmoreland 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will all be interested in reading the specifics of what you would propose to accomplish your goal Mantanmoreland. If you can provide that here on the discussion page, that would be helpful. I'm not so sure the term "glommed off" a "religious encyclopedia" is necessarily a correct or objective evaluation. The history on the page indicates that there was an explicit mention that some of the article was based on the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, which does not in my opinion rule it out as a valid source, anymore than commentary provided from a Roman Catholic or Jewish Encyclopedia would be ruled out. The SH Encyclopedia, by the way, is not a "Lutheran" encyclopedia. That notation about this reference was inaverdently removed by an editor, Rekleov, some time back and it was a simple accident on his part, so the accusation that there is Plagiarism on this page is incorrect. The citation can easily be restored. I would also like to ask you, Mantanmoreland, if you would care to comment on the fact that an article you referred to as a good example of an article on a religious figure, Ignatius Loyala, is lacking in any sources or citations. It seems to me that the Martin Luther article is rather carefully sourced and cited. So, again, if you have specifics to offer by way of examples of how you believe the article could be improved, I'm sure we would all like to read them here. Perhaps you can contribute to Sam's question below? Ptmccain 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I've been asked to stay out of this topic for awhile and will do so if all parties remain civil, discussing content and not other editors. Please discuss away, but realize I will not likely respond on this topic for a week or so. I would hope that the admins among us will be quick to point out when someone switches the topic to editors or slams a source or scholar. That being said, have fun! I'll see if I can find something on "Freedom of a Christian" short and sweet enough to help with a rewrite of our description of it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism Revision

Here is the revision to "Luther and Antisemitism" prepared per the discussion on this page:

No, not prepared "as per the discussion on this page." Prepared as per your blatant POV pushing and deliberate misinterpretations of comments made on this page.--Mantanmoreland 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism

I propose the following as replacement for the present form of the "Luther and Antisemitism" section. It accomodates a previous editor's wishes and general direction. It provides consistent description of persons and their positions. It removes the contentious quote from Netto, relegating him to the footnotes. It provides another quote from a non-Lutheran. I believe this is a better form of the article and offers a nore NPOV approach that the present article. I respectfully urge editors to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thanks to SV for her work on this section. Ptmccain 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Sam's suggestion, here is the note I put on his user talk page about this proposal: Yes, I propose it as a complete revision, though objective analysis of it reveals it is a modest revision, retaining most of what SV did with it recently. I put it up on the talk page for discusssion after it was reverted, but I did sincerely believe SV and I had reached a consensus on trying to indicate persons' affiliations. I notice the person who reverted it was not a participant in any discussion. As the present form of the article now stands it contains an error in describing Rabbi Bernbaum. I also tried very hard to be respectful of SV's concerns about the wording. I even removed the person who seems to have been a source of concern on the part of some editors: Netto. But I notice that my revision was simply reverted with no discussion and my placement of the article on the talk page has now been described as "clogging." I believe it is still good to rise above the pettiness and let it be seen for what it is. I'm doing my best to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF and I truly wish others would. But it would appear that one editor in particular, whomm I suspect actually of being two editors, is doing all he can to try to keep stirring up conflict and strife on the page. It's clear to me from the history that several of us have fed into that by responding in kind, me included, but that was not the right approach. That's why I believe the advice on WP:CIVIL is extremely wise. In such cases the best response is simply to ignore the person, forgive them, and respond as kindly as possible. Perhaps the editor will cool it, or if he persists, this then will be a matter to be taken up by Wiki administrators.Ptmccain 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to replace the present "Luther and Antisemitism" section with the version below in one week. I welcome specific responses that reflect WP:GF and WP:CIVIL, per Sam's proposal below. Thanks.Ptmccain 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be replacing the present text, with this text, later today. I asked for specific comments about this proposed revision. I again make that request. Thanks.Ptmccain 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's one comment for you. In the sentance: "The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, [2] a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. [3][4][5]", I don't like the idea of quoting a Nazi newspaper for substance: I generally view Nazis as having very little credibility, and would suggest the quote, if to be used at all, is better used to show what Nazi's thought, and not quoted for the truth of the point. On the "view shared by most contemporary scholars" language, I can't find the support in the texts for the "most radically anti-Semitic tract every published." Steigmann-Gall, in the quoted language, calls it "one of the most" anti-Semitic (he is, among other things, leaving room at the top of the list for the Nazis themselves, of course), and that could be used. Carroll, in a different place in his book, refers to it as one of the most anti-Semitic works "of its time", and I can't find any statement of this sort in Poliakov. I myself would drop the Nazi newspaper quote, especially since it is second-hand via some class slides and not even a published book or article, and replace it with Steigmann-Gall, without any additional cites (the point is strong and clear without them, and for Carroll the Luther discussion is just an aside, since the focus of his book is Roman Catholic anti-semitism since he is, after all, a Catholic Priest). Sam 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, tell you what, how about I replace the text with the material below, and then you tweek it as you see fit? I appreciate your comments and I agree with you. Since you know precisely what you are looking for here I think you are in a better position to change the article per yor comments. Ptmccain 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User Jayg has reverted the text. This was not entirely unexpected, but I must respectfully disagree with his reasons for doing so. First, the version that was revised and replaced was rewritten by one editor here who, without any prior discussion, took it upon herself to rewrite the section, without any notification and without any discussion. The revision that was offered was put on the discussion page, for discussion. Jayg, like any other Wiki user who cares enough about the section, can easily monitor the talk page via the "watch" function. His choice not to do so is no legitimate reason to revert the text. The revised form was placed here for an entire week for discussion during which time he would have been able to post whatever thoughts he had. Further, the reversion was done without any specfic comment about the chages. So, the concern I have is that user Jayg took this action based on faulty assumptions: 1) That Slim's rewriting reflected consensus; 2) That the revision was somehow not made available for discussion; 3) That it was difficult to follow the proposed change. Each of these reasons is incorrect and simply erroneous. Further, Jayjg has not offered any specific reasons why he disapproves the revision. I therefore will again replace the text with the revised version below soon. If Jayjg wishes to cite specific reasons why he believes the revision is inappropriate, he is invited to do so here, again. Ptmccain 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've actually listed issues, right here, on this absurdly long 216k Talk: page, where it's impossible to see anything. Furthermore, if you expected to be reverted, why on earth didn't you approach other editors who you knew would object, rather than burying your suggestion here? And finally, if you wish to make changes, you need to describe what they are, and why you think they should be made, not the other way around. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you know how easy it is to use the "watch" function. This was by no means "buried" and I believe you know that very well. One user chose to attack me for putting this here telling me I was "clogging" the page. This was no surprise, or secret. Let's drop the game-playing. This change has been proposed here for a solid week and there was no reason you could not have noticed it. If you want to protest how it is written, then you need to respond to the point that you and others refuse to respond to. You keep wishing merely to, in effect, shout down describing Jewish scholars as Jewish scholars, but that simply makes no sense when others are labelled by their affilications and professional vocations and associations.Ptmccain 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the current version is fine, there's no need for these changes, particularly the well-poisoning ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In particular, any attempt to make changes that include descriptions of scholars as "Jews" as simply bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, using "growl words" and such is not a good demonstation of WP:GF. Here is the point. Slim chose to label people in her edit. She did not hesitate to apply the label "Lutheran" to people as much as she could. That's fine, but then let's label appropriately all persons cited. Why should we be selective? By the way, her label of non-Lutherans as Lutherans was an error she was informed about, but chose not to correct. There seems to be great angst and concern about making sure sure readers know when a person quoted is Lutheran or a Luther scholar, but no such concern about informing readers about persons who are Rabbis, Jews or professors of Jewish studies. If we insist on labelling, then let's do it fairly and accurately. It is a throw-away line to refer to labelling persons who are Jewish as Jewish as "well poisoning." Why is this any more "well poisoning" on this page than referring to "Lutherans" and "Luther scholars" and such? It would be my opinion that labelling Lutherans as such is done in bad faith to predispose the reader to regard their opinions as automatically suspect. So, if we assume that Lutherans may be somewhat predisposed to a certain point of view on Luther and Antisemitism, is it unreasonable to assume also that Jews and those whose professions are as rabbis, or professors of Jewish studies also may have a certain POV on the subject of Luther and Antisemitism? Let's be consistent here and stop trying to wave the red flag of "antisemitism" or "well poisoning" or "bad faith." That is inappropriate and inaccurate. Either we label all persons or we label none. Either we describe all persons' occupations and positions, or none. As the article stands now it contains errors of fact that need to be correct, errors that have to do with trying to affix a label on people, done in my opinion, whether intended or not, so that a POV is being pushed. You can't rule out of hand describing people accurately and then insist on describing only a few.Ptmccain 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another important point. All the reasons for my edited version have been posted here now for several weeks, and thoroughly explained. It is your responsibility to keep up with the discussion if you feel strongly about it. But to come here now and suggest that these issues have not been discussed, or explained, is an error. A review of the discussion will make this apparent. Just because you chose not to keep up with the discussion does not mean it has not taken place. It is unfortunate that you continue to say otherwise. Repeating this assertion does not make it any more true. I'm still waiting for you, or anyone who objects, to respond specifically to the point: if we choose to label and describe, then we must do so for all, or do it not at all. Ptmccain 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies

The original title page of On the Jews and their Lies, written by Martin Luther in 1543.

In his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews' property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and ensure that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." Four centuries later, a first edition of the pamphlet was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. The German philosopher Karl Jaspers said of it: "There you already have the whole Nazi program."

There is little doubt among scholars that Luther's rhetoric contributed to, or at the very least was used by the Nazis to justify their genocidal program against the Jews and others whose lives were deemed unworthy of being lived. One scholar describes Luther’s comments as a foreshadowing of the Nazi program. although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated. At the heart of the debate is how direct a link one can draw from Luther’s ‘’On the Jews and their Lies’’ to the Nazis, or whether Luther’s comments were racially, or religiously, antisemitic or if there is any significance to that distinction.

In The World Must Know, the official publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, formerly director of the museum, now serving as Professor of Theology at Jewish University in Los Angeles,[[11]] writes that Luther's reliance on the Bible as the sole source of Christian authority fed his fury toward Jews over their rejection of Jesus as the messiah. For Luther, salvation depended on the belief that Jesus was the son of God, a belief that Jews do not share. Earlier in his life, Luther had argued that the Jews had been prevented from converting to Christianity by the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure gospel by Christians, and he believed the Jews would respond favorably to the evangelical message if it were presented to them gently. When they did not, he turned on them. Berenbaum quotes Luther's apparent support for the idea that Christians may be justified in killing Jews: "We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming."

British journalist and historian Paul Johnson writes that, even before On the Jews and their Lies, Luther "got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540s he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them from Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."

Regardless of whether Luther's writing was intended as racially antisemitic, many scholars argue that the violence of his views lent a new element to the standard Christian suspicion of Judaism. Jewish sociologist Ronald Berger has written that Luther is credited with "Germanizing the Christian critique of Judaism and establishing anti-Semitism as a key element of German culture and national identity." Jewish studies professor [[12]] Paul Rose claims that Luther caused a "hysterical and demonizing mentality" about Jews to enter German thought and discourse, a mentality that might otherwise have been absent. The coarseness of the language made his material particularly attractive to Nazism. Franklin Sherman, editor of ‘’The Jews and Their Lies’’’ in Luther's Works, writes that Luther's work on the Jews is not "merely a set of cool, calm and collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an identifiable human group, not just against a religious point of view; it is against that group that his action proposals are directed." Sherman argues that, as a consequence, "Luther cannot be distanced completely from modern antisemites."

Some scholars, including specialists in Luther and Reformation history, are in the minority on the issue. They disagree with the attempt to link Luther’s writings to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, arguing that it is too simplistic an analysis.Anglican Luther scholar Gordon Rupp wrote: “Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of 'Race'. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.” and "Needless to say, there is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther. The fact that he and other Nazis claimed Luther on their side proves no more than the fact that they also numbered Almighty God among their supporters. Hitler mentions Luther once in Mein Kampf in a harmless context. Writing in Lutheran Quarterly, Johannes Wallmann, professor of church history at the Humboldt University of Berlin, writes that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries,

Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work. In 1983, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, noting that "Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world," made an official statement "denouncing" Luther's "hostile attitude" toward the Jews. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced that it rejected "this violent invective as did many of his companions in the sixteenth century, and we are moved to deep and abiding sorrow at its tragic effects on later generations of Jews."

I want to be clear about the proposal: would this be a final (or as final as Wiki gets) form of this? Would subsequent changes be made without consensus? Does this settle the labeling issues, or broader issues out there? Thanks, Sam 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On his talk page, Ptmccain has indicated that this is intended as a global solution, with no further changes without consensus. I'd encourage him to put that here. I realize there are items in the above everyone may consider not ideal; some may prefer not to have the approach to labelling he has suggested. However, I note this would freeze a number of potentially contentious statements, permitting change to them only with broad consensus. Please consider this very carefully. Sam 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The current version, ex the POV pushing, will do for the time being. Let's move on to the rest of the article, starting with the parts cribbed from a 90 year old POV encyclopedia. Stop trying to talk this subject to death. --Mantanmoreland 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a series of specific and detailed critiques of the current language, based on a careful reading of the cited sources, and would prefer to raise them in a situation where they can be reasonably discussed, before any changes are made. Rev. McCain's suggestion would allow that, and would permit those who like the language as it is to know that changes would not be made without consensus. I also believe the overall issue of whether or not it makes sense to reference credentials is ripe for trying to resolve via a RfC, seeking input from the broader community on a specific issue (manner of citations and manner of establishing credibility) that affects the whole community. If others wish to work on the rest of the article, they certainly should do so. I will be continuing to work on this part. But, again, I would prefer to wait to deal with all these details until an overall framework for reasonable discussion is reached.Sam 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an important way to have reasonable discussion is to have reasonable discussion. I can understand why some editors are inclined automatically to dismiss any discussion on this, but let's just observe WP:GF and WP:CIVIL and discuss it and stop the accusations and sniping remarks that hinder constructive dialogue. That's my .02 cents worth. Where I have done that in the past, I apologize. Let's move on now and talk it over. I look forward to your observations Sam and encourage you to proceed. Editors who do not feel so inclined to discuss certainly do not have to participate, but they should not hinder the discussion. Thanks Sam.Ptmccain 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an even better way to proceed is if you stop POV edits. --Mantanmoreland 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland is correct, particularly when the edits involve describing scholars as Jews, which Ptmcain knows will simply not fly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Section Identified Below

Luther and Antisemitism Labelling/Description Issue

I would suggest that a simple issue like how the article in its present form identifies some persons' affiliations while not others and how it uses the terms "historian" and "scholar" needs to be more consistent. That would then, in my opinion, help overcome what various editors perceive to be POV issues in the article. I've got no problem in describing a "minority viewpoint" but we need to label historians and scholars as such since others are so labelled in the article. It is the labelling inconsistencies in the article that are where many would perceive there to be POV pushing. It may not even be intended and folks doing it may not even be aware of it, but when one person is labelled a "historian" and a "scholar" and another is not, though they are both historians and scholars, that tends to skew the perspective. I propose that we go with the minority viewpoint line and simply say:

A minority viewpoint is expressed by other historians and scholars...

That way you let the reader know it is a minority viewpoint but it avoids giving readers the impression that "historians and scholars" say "A" while there are other people [not historians and scholars] saying "B." It is an issue of tone and balance. If we lead with "historians and scholars" when presnting both positions, it will make for a more balanced approach.

And, if we choose to label some persons as "German" or "Lutheran" or "lay theologian", etc. then for the sake of the integrity of the article, let's make it clear where others quuoted in the article serve and what they do, for instance, Bernbaum is described by Wiki article on him as a "Jewish-American scholar." Rose is head of Jewish studies at an institution, shouldnt't we identify them in this fashion, and others as well? If the article insists on identifying Netto as a Lutheran journalist and lay theologian, shouldn't Rabbi Bernbaum be described as a Rabbi? See my point? Or, would it be better not to try to label people cited? Could we not just let historians and scholars be heard, even if we don't agree with what they say, and bring a bit more balance that way? Respectfully submitted, Ptmccain 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have found out that Rabbi Bernbaum is no longer the director of the Holocaust Museum, but is presently serving as Professor of Theology at Jewish University in Los Angeles. See [[13]]. I believe this information should be provided in the section we are discussing. Ptmccain 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example of this issue: Ronald Berger is cited in the article, as it is presently written, with the label "historian." He is in fact a Jewish sociologist serving at a extension of the University of Wisconsin. You may read more about him at [[14]] I mention this as another example of my point: he is misidentified in the article, but he is labelled as a "historian" whereas other historians are not, and others who are scholars, like Bergen, are not permitted to be labelled as "scholar" either. I would, again, respectfully suggest we stop trying to label people, or if we do, do so accurately and consistently and fairly.Ptmccain 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example, by way of contrasting, and comparing the inconsistency of labelling and description in the piece. Some are described, or were recently described, as "Lutheran" and some are still described as a "German historian" or as a "Lutheran lay theologian" but others are merely said to be "historians" with no further information. Case in point Dr. Paul Rose, no doubt a very fine accomplished scholars is chair of Jewish Studies and as such, if we wish to be consistent, this should be mentioned. See [[15]]. Respectfully submitted by Ptmccain 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another couple of examples, the world-class historians and scholars, Bainton and Rupp are relegated to notes. Each was a notable scholar in his own right. Neither men were Lutherans, as was incorrectly stated in a recent version of the article. I mention these two men as examples of the labelling issues, easily taken care of: either consistently and accurately describe who people are, and where they serve, or do not label at all. At the article is written now it leaves the reader with the impressions that those who do not share the point of view expressed by the historians and scholars quoted earlier are themselves neither historians, nor scholars, but merely proponents of a minority point of view, and that then is what gives the article as presently written a POV, again, situation easily taken care of. Hope these examples help. Ptmccain 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If a person is a Lutheran clergyman or is writing in a Lutheran journal or a book published by a Lutheran publishing house, that should be clearly stated in the text. The same principle applies to any religious subject -- one identifies the conflict of interest. If someone writes about a Catholic subject, and is a priest, the fact that he is a priest should be identified because that is a conflict of interest. Ditto for a Catholic publishing house. However, that is not license to guess at or disclose, if one knows, the religious affiliation of every single person writing about a religious subject, assuming one knows.--Mantanmoreland 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me make my point Mantanmoreland. If we are going to label folks and their affiliations, then let's do so consistently and accurately. The examples above I've provided demonstrates the inconsistency in how that is done now. So, given your comments, I would assume you would support identifying the Jewish Rabbi writing on Jewish issues? My personal feeling is that we do not need to do this kind of labelling which may easily cause POV concerns to arise. But if we insist on labelling, let's do it consistently, accurately and fairly.Ptmccain 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't confirming your "point," to the extent I could make sense of it. Let me make it simple for you: In this and other Luther articles, a source's employment by the Lutheran church, or that the source article/book is published by a Lutheran publishing house or journal, needs to be disclosed. The religious affiliation of people with other affiliations, such as the author of the Holocaust Center pamphlet, is of no relevancy whatsoever. --Mantanmoreland 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that a Lutheran's affiliation is necessary to indicate when citing something that he has written, such as a book published by a Lutheran publishing house, but that a Rabbi's written work published by the Holocaust Museum is irrelevant in a section or article on Luther and Antisemitism. I respectfully disagree, but I understand what you are saying now. Thanks.Ptmccain 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No not "affiliation." Go back and read it again.--Mantanmoreland 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you better start doing some research to find out which of the historians actually practise Judaism. Being a Lutheran is a religious thing, not an ethnicity, so determining that someone is an ethnic Jew isn't enough. As you said, it's important to demonstrate consistency. Perhaps you could write and ask them about their levels of observance. Good luck, and let us know how you get on! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review my numerous previous remarks on the issue under discussion. I would assume that an ordained Rabbi is in fact a practicing Jew. I assume also that it would only be open and honest to identify those historians and scholars who are chairs of Jewish studies at institutions of higher learning. The selective labelling of some as "historians" or "scholars" while others are not so identified, or merely relegated to a footnote does not make for a balanced article. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll kindly refer you to my previous remarks and encourage you to bring the article in line with proper labelling, if you really feel that is necessary. I think actually the section is almost there, and would benefit from only some modest tweaking. Thanks for your efforts.Ptmccain 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting, or implying, that a person's level of religious observance is relevant to his/her "Jewishness" when it comes to the issue of Antisemitism? And that only if a person is an observant Jew, in terms of religion, that would merit mention that they are Jewish? That would then seem to speak against labelling a "German" a German. I think that it is appropriate IF, and I do mean IF, it is truly deemed necessay to label folks, to mention that a person is Jewish, or is chair of Jewish studies, etc. I find Google a helpful resource. I would think that a person who is Jewish would be inclined to have a certain point of view on the Holocaust regardless of whether or not they are religiously observant, just as you would, legitimately, wish to make the point that a person who is German or Lutheran may bring with him/her a certain point of view as well. So, if we wish to label in order to make persons' affiliations and identifications clear in order to let the reader know, lets do it for everyone. I'm repeating myself again, but thanks for the opportunity to clarify my point and helping me to understand your point. Ptmccain 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

.... and on and on it goes, a discussion about nuthin, diverting attention and editors' energies from the fact that this article reads like a Lutheran Church pamphlet, and in fact much of it is glommed en masse, verbatim, from a 90-year-old encyclopedia. --Mantanmoreland 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have limited time right now, but I sense some talking past each other, so I'm going to take a go at clarifying points from different people. If I misstate, please correct me.

• • Rev. McCain, what I think SV is saying is that there is a bias that arises from it being Luther involved, so a Lutheran speaking on Luther, because they view his words as at some level sacred or otherwise elevated, is likely to be uncritical. If I may, I would expect SV to say that the similar comparison would not be a Jewish person speaking about Luther, but a Jewish person speaking about, for example, Moses. SV, let me know if there is an example you think would be clearer. To Rev. McCain I ask, isn't it critical for the Lutheran faith that Luther be held in high esteem?

Lutherans do not regard Luther's words as sacred, let me get that out of the way first. And we do not receive his words uncritically, as even our own book of frmal statements of faith make clear. I concur with you, and if this is all that SV is saying, I would agree with that editor. Similarly, then, it would be my opinion that when the subject of the Holocaust and Antisemitism is discussed it would only fair, IF...IF...we insist on labelling people to identify folks with positions with, paid by, or otherwise affiliated with Jewish groups, organizations and other such institutions. As to holding Luther in "high esteem" yes, but...only to the extent that Luther is correct when he teaches about what we believe to be God's Word. It is for that reason that we do not accept Luther's remarks about the Jews as correct, and, as my denomination did in 1983, well before other American Lutheran churches did, we denounced his antisemitic remarks. The debate in this section, in my opinion, is not whether or not Luther's remarks were correct, right, appropriate, etc. etc. but the extent to which one can draw a line from those remarks to the Nazi program to exterminate Jews [and for that matter all other undesirables, including those whose "lives were not worthy of living." Thanks for your efforts Sam.Ptmccain 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • SV, Mantanmoreland, what I hear Rev. McCain saying is that everyone has some kind of bias when a topic and a subject like this are involved, and that assuming a Lutheran would have no reason to criticize or be objective about Luther is just an assumption, and one he disagrees with. Just as you say "good luck with that" on figuring out how religious any particular Jewish person is, he would say, yes, XYZ has studied Luther in connection with a Lutheran chruch program or educational institituion, but how do you know what his faith, or the strength of his faith is? To SV and Mantanmoreland I ask, why shouldn't we deal with writings and ideas on their own terms? I would expect Lutherans to study Luther quite intently, why shouldn't we learn from them?

These are all good questions. Now, I have to get out of here, and will check in tomorrow. Best, Sam 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I said employed by the Lutherans or published in a Lutheran publication, not being Lutheran. Read my comments. Don't base your comments on a misquote -- in my view an intentional one -- by Ptmccain.--Mantanmoreland 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction; I was (and am) short of time, so I haven't read it all as carefully as I'd like; please feel free to note other corrections; the summary was only to try to clarify, which is what your response does. Sam 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that would just be throwing good time after wasted. This whole discussion is pointless and is an example of why these Talk pages wear down editors who try to make this article read like less of a tribute to the great and glorious Martin Luther. --Mantanmoreland 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the editor said: "If a person is a Lutheran clergyman or is writing in a Lutheran journal or a book published by a Lutheran publishing house, that should be clearly stated in the text. The same principle applies to any religious subject -- one identifies the conflict of interest. If someone writes about a Catholic subject, and is a priest, the fact that he is a priest should be identified because that is a conflict of interest. Ditto for a Catholic publishing house. However, that is not license to guess at or disclose, if one knows, the religious affiliation of every single person writing about a religious subject, assuming one knows." Do note that the comment was not, as claimed, restricted to a person being a Lutheran. I agree therefore with the comment. Similarly if a person is Jewish, OR is writing for a Jewish organization, institution or otherwise affiliated with a Jewish organization and institution, that should be clearly identified. It seems only to make sense that is the subject being discussed is Antisemitism it is relevant to identify persons who are Jewis or are affiliated, employed by etc. Jewish or antisemitic study centers, museums, etc. etc. etc. IF, in fact we must label folks this way, IF...and I do mean, IF...let's be consistent. Example: Rabbi Bernbaum. Whereas others in the article are labelled "German" or "Lutheran" his affiliation and vocation is not similarly identified. That is an inconsistency. I regret that this point is so difficult to make. As I've already said today, I actually think the section is almost there, just in need of a bit more tweaking to get us there. I think I have been sufficiently clear and I regret that certain editors can not understand this point and apologize for my insufficient manner of expressing myself on this point.Ptmccain 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, you agree with this: In an article on Martin Luther, "If a person is a Lutheran clergyman or is writing in a Lutheran journal or a book published by a Lutheran publishing house, that should be clearly stated in the text."

Good. Let's move on. You can raise the rest of your "points" in the talk pages of Jewish et al articles. Here it's just clogging.--Mantanmoreland 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, and it is good to know that you agree that persons who are employed by, working for, or publishing materials in association with Jewish agencies, institutions or organizations should also be so identified in material pertaining to Antisemitism. Thanks. I knew we could work together Mantanmoreland. Ptmccain 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't say that and don't agree with it but thanks for misquoting me again -- you are consistent, I'll give you that much. I trust you also agree with the corollary of what I said, which is that Lutheran clergyman should not be editing this article. Main thing is this -- read the next few words carefully: Stop clogging this page. --Mantanmoreland 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I can't read all of the above because it's pointless, but just to clarify, I don't care what the Luther(an) scholars are called, so long as it's the truth i.e. so long as we don't call journalists "historians." I wrote that they were Lutherans to indicate that they were specialists. Just list people's positions and be done with it. This is the kind of discussion that has led to the high burn-out rate of editors on this page, and it's going to increase, I sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the word, "scholar", which you use elsewhere, is that acceptable? I note it is applied to James Carroll, who is a priest and journalist but does not hold any position with an academic institution (and whom everyone here should read, by the way). Would you support using this (and I note this may not address Mantanmoreland's concerns with employment, for example) Sam 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the editor SV correctly, she would opt for identifying persons mentioned in the article. That certainly is an option and we can work on that. I do think it will help the situation. Like I said, I suspect we are almost there with the section. If we all would truly agree to abide by WP:GF and WP:CIVIL I'm sure we can get there. Thanks. Ptmccain 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop clogging. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, PTM, stop deliberately misinterpreting comments by others on this talk page and then labeling your POV-pushing edits as "per talk page." These tactics, taken together with your fillibustering on this talk page, are disruptive and contrary to WP:POINT. --Mantanmoreland 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Placement of Source Template

The instructions for the use of source templates states that the template should be placed in "Articles near bottom." I placed the template there, only to have an editor move it to the top, claiming I was attempting to bury it. Which should it be: follow the instructions in Wikipedia namespace, or move it to the top. Placement makes no difference to me, since I hope to go through and formally cite each paragraph of the copied sections. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, you're on a break from this page. Please stick to it. If placement makes no difference to you, there's no need to comment on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note I'm on a break from the "On the Jews" subject. Also note, I was asked to clarify this issue. I did. Then, I was reverted and my motives attacked. I hoped that you, perhaps, might ask others not to provoke others by attacking their motives, but I have seen no evidence of it. So, if you don't mind, I will explain myself and let it drop. Thank you. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understood you had agreed to take a break from the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note my statement under Talk:Martin Luther#A Golden Opportunity. As you recall, I also asked that admins would hold people to civil rhetoric, which I have yet to see evidence of. I also do not have an interest in engaging in arguments here. However, if I am asked directly to respond to an issue, such as you did above, or if my motives are questioned, I intend to set the record straight. This I have done. Now, with your permission, may we drop this subject? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Question to you Slim. Should CTS comply with Wiki policy instructions in the placement of the template re. the source? Are editors free to deviate from Wiki policy instructions on a case-by-case basis? What's your input as a Wiki admin? Thanks. I'll also pop this over to your user talk page so you don't miss it.Ptmccain 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I propose that you stick with Wiki policy. There has been a very high level of expectation on this page that Wiki policy be complied with as strictly and closely as possibly, so I think that you should put the template where Wiki indicates it should be placed. Thanks for your efforts on the page CTS. Editors who wish to do something contrary to Wiki policy in regard to the template can take up their variance from Wiki policy with Wikipedia. I respectfully urge all editors participating on this page to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I urge editors to heed Wiki's advice: # Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach) Ptmccain 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on placement of source templates. If you read the page, you'll see it isn't even a guideline. We do have an NPOV policy though! Maybe we could try to stick to that one first, then deal with the lesser rules as we go along. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the instructions on this page [16] which indicate that the source template is to be placed at the bottom of the article. Are those instructions to be followed on Wikipedia, or may they be disregarded? I'm trying to understand how this kind of thing works on Wikipedia. As for your other remark, if you have specific constructive remarks to offer about WP:NPOV please offer them in the appropriate place where I've asked for feedback and reaction. For instance, I welcome your specific reaction to my revision of your edit on the Luther and Antisemitism article. I respectfully again would urge you to exercise due diligence in complying with WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. I'm making every effort to do so, and I respectfully encourage you to do the same.Ptmccain 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you, too, would like to review Rev. McCain's proposal above. Sam 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my comments. Let's move on to the rest of the article, starting with the parts cribbed from a 90-year-old POV encyclopedia. The fillibustering is wearing out yet another generation of editors and frankly Sam you are contributing to it. It serves no useful purpose to enshrine one of this editor's many POV edits as some kind of "proposal" worthy of "careful review" or whatever. Please stop playing moderator. --Mantanmoreland 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As a completely disinterested browser, Mantamoreland, I'd like to note that I can't find your last useful, or even non-abrasive, contribution to this talk page. Icewolf34 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As a completely interested Wikipedian, Icewolf34, I'd like to note that after a grand total of 4 days of Wikipedia contributions, your first contribution to this page is to attack an editor. Your inability to find anything useful might be remedied by, and indeed your ability to produce something useful yourself might be enhanced by, reading the talk page and article edit histories otherwise your "note" might be misunderstood as [trolling]. Just out of curiosity, with over 1 million Wikipedia articles, how does a "completely disinterested browser" wind up on this page? After all, compared to the lifetime odds of being killed by lightning (1:56,000), the chances of a "completely disinterested browser" coming to this page seems kinda small. --Doright 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To both editors, kindly observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF.Ptmccain 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Icewolf, my apologies, but you have now received a very similar Luther page welcome to my own, just a couple of short weeks ago. Please note that this page is far more contentious than most, and usually people Don't bite the newcomers on Wikipedia. Sam 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) As these words were intemperate I strike them out with an apology. I ask others to do the same with their own intemperate statements. Now, let me suggest we focus on the article. A proposal has been made above, and it is one I view as reasonable. I'd appreciate either of those who took me to task below identifying any one reason why they do not view it as reasonable. Sam 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I think you were treated very courteously. You have, however, shown blatant partisanship that does not go over well. Your response above being one example. --Mantanmoreland 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, the sanctimonious tone is not helpful. And, a member since 2004 can hardly be considered a "newcomer." Furthermore, personal attacks, including your own, are not to be encouraged. I note that you, like this editor, first came to my attention by engaging in a personal attack. Please focus on the article and not on the editors. --Doright 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully remind the the two editors above to be careful to adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:GF, and WP:NPA.Ptmccain 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Schaff-Herzog

Does the use of an encyclopedia recognized as a legitimate source by Wikipedia [17]constitute a POV when used in an article? And does its use provide a legitimate reason for the POV tag to be placed on the article? If so, shouldn't Wikipedia remove this as a recognized source on the encyclopedia page? I do not believe that using a standard reference work like SH in an article on a famous religous figure means that the entire article is somehow guilty of a POV. I believe that the user who placed the tag, should remove it. I welcome his response and explanation as to why he believes the use of the POV tag because SH is used is appropriate. Thanks.Ptmccain 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Wikipedia has no official legitimate sources list - it has a list of templates that editors have created because those sources are frequently cited. The editors of the article are to reach consensus on the language, citing sources and making sure that they are reliable and where assertions of fact are disputed the sources are to be identified and references provided. Regardless, we have the responsibility to neutrally present the information and identify the bias, if any. --Trödel 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor who has repeatedly asserted that the Martin Luther page quotes verbatim, extensively, from the SH article has been asked to provide evidence to support that claim, but has so far not done that. Would it be helpful for the editor who continues to make that assertion to provide concrete evidence for us to examine? And...if there are extensive verbatim quotes, they are easily sourced from SH which is available on-line. I do not view this as any sort of significant problem. Ptmccain 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the NPOV notice

Well - it looks like I stepped in it. Sorry for not completing the suggestions mediation I made started - something came up in the real world ;)

Just as notice - my intentions were to read through the discussion and identify the sections that are disputed - use the proper section NPOV notices and see if I could help find compromise language that would reach concensus. I apologize for leaving things half done - but will be back soon - --Trödel 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - another hand is always welcome. Sam 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I just clarify here that I have not agreed to any mediation, and I haven't seen a proposal that someone should mediate. Therefore, there is no mediator on this page. It's important to clarify that, because I recently watched a situation elsewhere go badly wrong because of a similiar misunderstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to official mediation but just my attempt to bring about a peaceful consensus as a third party uninvolve in the dispute before yesterday. --Trödel 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trodel, it's important to clarify that there are no mediators on this page i.e. no third parties. There are only editors. The reason I'm stressing this is that I just saw a bad situation unfold on another page because the editors didn't make clear to someone who presented herself as an informal mediator that they hadn't accepted her as such. So I've learned my lesson from that, and I'm therefore stressing that there are no mediators, formal or informal, on this page. No offense to you personally is intended. It's a procedural thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the comment about "mediation." The user was merely trying to be helpful, and was not trying to invoke any formal "mediatino" process on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are no misunderstandings of this point, but it very thoughtful of you to take the time to express your concern here. By the way, I would really appreciate it if you would address yourself to the remark I left on your talk page? I think you owe CTS a word of apology for the fact that you put up a section titled "plagiarism" and then did not take appropriate steps to correct that error, understandable perhaps, when the facts were made fully known? That would be a nice expression of good faith which I'm sure all here would appreciate and a nice modelling of appropriate behavior on the part of an admin. who is obviously very passionate about Wiki WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thanks for your consideration.Ptmccain 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection on the use of this particular NPOV tag, and in light of the fact that the person who used it did so without first explaining his rationale for using it, and has not responded to the legitimate questions put to him about it, I've removed it. It is clearly erroneous to claim that using a source that Wikipedia itself recognizes as a legitimate source means an article is NPOV. It is not appropriate for a person who has had nothing to do with this page, or these issues, to come storming in and slap an inappropriate NPOV tag on the whole article. Ptmccain 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is required until all the stuff glommed off a 90-year old POV encyclopedia is reverted. The POV of this article has been repeatedly disputed as far too glorifying of Luther by several editors, and there you have the reason -- the significent copies from an encyclopedia that used hagiographic language that glorified Luther. Stop the POV-pushing reverts and edit warring.--Mantanmoreland 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

References to SH have now been supplied to SH. The use of the SH encyclopedia is entirely appropriate since it is a recognized and legitimae source for use on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia's own pages and instructions. Very little was actually directly quoted. Where it is possible to identify them as such, thoughts and concepts taken from SH have been supplied. There is now no need for the "POV Because" tag. There were in fact no "significant copying" from SH. Claims that the language borrowed from SH is "hagiographic" have still not been specifically documented with the evidence for us all to examine. The POV tag reasons have been satisfied. Tag therefore now removed. Please cease and desist from violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF as well as making assertions without any substantiation or evidence provided. Other editors are welcomed and encouraged to further cite and source the article, etc.Ptmccain 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. As was previously pointed out above, three entire sections were copied word-for-word, and one was quoted above in toto. This is a major contributor to the "let's all pay fealty to Martin Luther" tone of the entire article, as large sections were glommed off an ancient encyclopedia with a strong POV. --Mantanmoreland 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually sat with the SH and looked at the article. I could not find any massive verbatim quotes. A few sentences here and there did use identical verbiage. I've tried to put quotes where that happens. Others are welcome to do more if they can identify more. Clearly, general thoughts. The editor making these accusations has not supplied hard evidence of large quotes, in spite of being asked to do so multiple times, nor has this person provided any evidence that quotes used, or thoughts taken from the SH constitute a POV situation. Repeating the accusation over and over doesn't make any more true. It would more constructive to actually provide carefully thought through and specfic comments, offered in the spirit of WP:CIVIL and assuming WP:GF than to keep up a style and manner of rhetoric that only poisons the atmosphere here. Respectfully offered, Ptmccain 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rational There is clearly a challenge to the Neutrality of the article on the talk page - I could tell that within minutes of reading it. So I think the POV notice is appropriate. However, I think the standard for removal is when concensus is reached that the tag is no longer necessary - or when their is no longer an active discussion challenging the neutrality (of course articles like George W. Bush are special cases).

Could you offer specific examples of what you believe are POV statements? That would be helpful. Wiki guidelines indicated that this is an important way to facilitate the discussion of why you belive the use of a POV tag is appropriate. I look forward to reading your specific examples of where you believe the article is in violaton of WP:NPOV. Coming to this you may see things none of us no longer notice. Further, if yo would carefully examine WP:NPOV and from that information site specific instances in the article that stand in contrast to what is considered a POV on the official policy page that would really be helpful. Thanks.Ptmccain 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The sections that are being discussed that some editors claim have neutrality problems seem obvious to me from reading the page but here are the ones I see:

• Luther and Anti-semetism
• Widening breach - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia where necessary to identify the possible POV of the editors (which I don't yet know enough to draw any conclusions yet about SH's neutrality)
• Liturgy and Church government - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia
• Eucharistic views and controversies - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia

--Trödel 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm obviously being unclear, but may I please ask you to state specifically what it is in those sections that you regard as POV? What specific words, phrases, statements, etc. that you believe presently are in violation of WP:NPOV? That's what I mean by specific examples. What "some editors" claim is beside the point, for if you check those "claims" they are merely, in most cases, nothing more than emotionally charged outbursts, not reasoned responses. They are generally made with zero evidence to back up the assertions. And repeating an assertion doesn't mean it is true. Please do not insert tags on the article without carefully and specifically citing the precise words and phrases, offering quotes from the article, which you regard as POV and why you regard them so. Hope this helps you understand the point I'm trying to make. Thanks. Further, I'm a bit puzzled why you would label, for instance "Eucharistic views and controversies" as needing "proper sourcing from the SH" when in fact virtually every sentence in that section is footnoted to the SH. Can you help me understand your point here? Thanks.Ptmccain 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, statements like "the tag is required until all the stuff glommed off a 90 year old POV encyclopedia is reverted" do not help resolve the issue. Rather we should focus on what assertions of fact are made in the language that came from the SH encyclopedia? Are they disputed? If disputed, then what is the source of the assertion? Identify it, reference it and move on to the next one. And where the assertions are not disputed make sure the language reflects neutral use of adjectives and other descriptors. --Trödel 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Let's deal with specific examples and put the words in front of us that are used from SH that some regard as POV. Specific examples to back up claims is the only way we can proceed here, as well as carefully adhereing to WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thanks.Ptmccain 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome some specifics here. What, exactly, is disputed? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Trödel, regarding your reversion of the {POV-section} notice on the "Widening breach" section, you left this edit summary: "well - I've done a lot of reading and it seems the two sections that have been discussed as having POV problems are not identified - so we don't need it on the whole article." But, the {POV-section} notice does not apply to "the whole article." Your edit summary doesn't make sense to me. In fact, there is not a single POV notice to be found anywhere on the article. Please explain your reversion, or if done in error, please revert yourself. --Doright 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I addressed this shortly after this note, by clearly identifying the specific issue rather than using the {{POV-section}} template. --Trödel 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know where you are "clearly identifying the specific issue." What I do see is that Ptmccain and you have removed all the NPOV flags whether on the entire article or on specific sections. If you remove an NPOV flag that you placed, that's one thing. However, removing other editors' POV flag is a different matter. Who placed the POV flags that you have removed? Collegially, --Doright 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Article: insert • remove
• Widening breach: insert • replace with cite request • remove
• Luther and Antisemitism: insert
• Liturgy and Church government: cite request
• Eucharistic views and controversies: cite request

Fortunately for me, CTSW is quicker than I am on marking them - as I am still getting up to speed and reading the source material --Trödel 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Trödel, thanks, now I get it. However, your first link * Article: insert • remove shows you removing the NPOV flag placed by Mantanmoreland. Has he agreed to this? --Doright 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad - that one was because there was a little revert war going on - though I think he may or may not agree with the removal - I did originally place it there. --Trödel 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Doright, kindly consult the page history and you will see the Troedel is responsible for placing various POV tags into the article recently, and as such, is also entitled to remove them. I think he realized he was not in fact specifying clearly enough why he placed the tags to begin with and now understands that. Thanks. Ptmccain 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tetzel's Jingle Report

Sam, I've still not had luck in finding where folks are getting the jingle from.

I am getting closer. Luther paraphrases it this way in his cover letter of the 95 theses, addressed to the Archbishop of Mainz, 31 October 1517: "They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest." (Luther's Works, vol. 38, page 46)

And this way late in life, in his polemic Against Hanswurst: "Again, that if anyone put money in the box for a soul in purgatory, the soul would fly to heaven as soon as the coin clinked on the bottom." (Luther's Works, vol. 41, page 232)

As far as secondary sources, Bainton, Kittelson, and Koimann (ref available on request) quote the jingle as from Tetzel, Grisar quotes it and says it is not known whether or not Tetzel ever said it, but it is consistent with things Tetzel did say. A note in the American edition of Luther's Works says "who knows if he said it?"

I'll keep looking. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're miles ahead of the pack here - it's likely worth a note in an academic journal somewhere if you can get to the bottom of it, or even just to summarize what there is on it. Tracing the sentiment to Luther's reaction is, along with a track-down of that reference from the Catholic Encylcopedia that said Tetzel's Frankfort treatises are consistent, likely gets us to putting the sentiment if not the words in Tetzel's mouth. I'm afraid I've not been much help to date on it. Sam 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It does help to have a library at your disposal some days. 8-) I'm still hoping to find out where the scholars who've commented get this thing from. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Schaff-Herzog documentation complete

I've completed the documentation of text from the Schaff-Herzog in this article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx - I've started adding quotes where the languages is verbatim - will continue later --Trödel 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've identified the verbatim quotes in the Eucharistic views and controversies and Liturgy and Church government sections. I have a couple questions:

1. Is there a reason that <cite></cite> is used instead of '' for italics. Does this provide some kind of metadate or something or can I use '' instead (don't worry I'm not planning on changing them all - just whether I can use that wikiformating?)

   <cite> tags allow search engines that recognize this HTML tag as marking titles to index them as titles. What does that mean? It allows, for example, Google, to weight the terms higher in its database, making it easier for people searching on these titles to find pages that contain them. There's no page policy on it, or preference for it beyond me, as far as I know. So go ahead are mark them as you see fit. If no one else minds, however, I'll continue to convert wiki format for titles to cite tags. It's librarian thing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

   Great! - I was figuring their had to be something like that - I think I am going to adjust the other way - proper indexing on search engines is a useful benefit. --Trödel 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

2. This quote from the Eucharistic views and controversies section:

   "...Luther's [basis] for his Eucharistic doctrine was"[82] what he considered to be a simple, straightforward understanding of the words of institution, but he extolled Jesus's bodily sacrifice and the giving of this very same body to communicants in the Eucharist."

   Seems to contradict the source on SH:

   "Luther's reason for his Eucharistic doctrine was not a mere literal interpretation of the words of institution, but rather thankfulness for such an individual sealing and giving of the forgiveness won by the death of this body in the administering of the very same body, doubts as to the possibility of such a presence being silenced by remembering the absolute unity of the divine with the human in Christ."

   But, quite frankly, I am not sure what either sentence is trying to communicate.

   I'll review this later. We certainly can revise these in light of what Luther taught, which is quite different from Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Sacrament.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I started using named footnotes like <ref name=sh74 /> for references to the same page - wanted to make sure that this was ok - and not against the convention for this article.

--Trödel 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no policy. There has been some discussion of footnote format. I suggested the Chicago Manual of Style, which is used in most theological and historical publications. No objection was made to this, so, I've worked at bringing the article's documentation in line with it. The only problem I've seen with the named notes is that it tends to destroy the sequence of notes when we cite a previously cited source not immediately above it. It can also yield occaisonally citing information on pages where it is not located.

This is a very long way around saying fine with me, but please give each note a unique name and link to a separate note number for non-consecutive notes.

--CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on using "name#" type format where # is the page # so that each page would have a seperate note - rather than each source. --Trödel 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good plan! In the end, then, everything should reference the correct page (column, section, whatever the numbering). As long as the notes are in consecutive order, then, I'll be happy. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note size

I'd prefer to have notes in normal, not small size, if no one minds. It's hard on my ancient eyes.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it CTS, please. Thanks. Ptmccain 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the unannounced change --Trödel 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentation work needed in Martin Luther#Luther's excommunication

We need citations for two Luther quotes in this section, for someone to check the online Catholic Encyclopedia and remove the "cited in" in the last note in the section and to look up and complete the information for other entries in this note. If someone can get to any of this before I do, you have my thanks for doing it. If not, I'll get there eventually. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam! That's a good start. We will, of course, want to work at removing the cited in, but its good enough for our purposes until we can lay our hands on the source. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Understanding of God; Health

Both of these topics are major discussions in the study of Luther's life and thought. It belongs here. If anyone's interested, I can provide citations to help demonstrate this and provide some background reading on the subject. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the user who reverted documented work on the page and then described as "unencyclopedic" would provide more specific reasons why he described it that way. I don't think it is helpful to use this kind of description without specificity. Thanks.Ptmccain 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the second time today Mantanmoreland has removed properly sourced material and declared it, now twice, to be "unencyclopedic." He has yet to provide any specific evidence for his vague assertion. Assertions without proof are of little value. It would be far more helpful to provide specific evidence for assertions.Ptmccain 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism Revision Discussion

I propose the following as replacement for the present form of the "Luther and Antisemitism" section. It accomodates a previous editor's wishes and general direction. It provides consistent description of persons and their positions. It removes the contentious quote from Netto, relegating him to the footnotes. It provides another quote from a non-Lutheran. I believe this is a better form of the article and offers a nore NPOV approach that the present article. I respectfully urge editors to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thanks to SV for her work on this section. All references to persons' occupations, or religious commitments, and any such labelling or identifications has been removed. Put all comments below the proposed revision. Ptmccain 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies

The original title page of On the Jews and their Lies, written by Martin Luther in 1543.

In his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews' property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and ensure that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." Four centuries later, a first edition of the pamphlet was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. Karl Jaspers said of it: "There you already have the whole Nazi program."

There is little doubt among scholars that Luther's rhetoric contributed to, or at the very least was used by the Nazis to justify their genocidal program against the Jews and others whose lives were deemed unworthy of being lived. One scholar describes Luther’s comments as a foreshadowing of the Nazi program. although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated. At the heart of the debate is how direct a link one can draw from Luther’s ‘’On the Jews and their Lies’’ to the Nazis, or whether Luther’s comments were racially, or religiously, antisemitic or if there is any significance to that distinction.

In The World Must Know, Michael Berenbaum writes that Luther's reliance on the Bible as the sole source of Christian authority fed his fury toward Jews over their rejection of Jesus as the messiah. For Luther, salvation depended on the belief that Jesus was the son of God, a belief that Jews do not share. Earlier in his life, Luther had argued that the Jews had been prevented from converting to Christianity by the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure gospel by Christians, and he believed the Jews would respond favorably to the evangelical message if it were presented to them gently. When they did not, he turned on them. Berenbaum quotes Luther's apparent support for the idea that Christians may be justified in killing Jews: "We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming."

Paul Johnson writes that, even before On the Jews and their Lies, Luther "got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540s he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them from Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."

Regardless of whether Luther's writing was intended as racially antisemitic, many scholars argue that the violence of his views lent a new element to the standard Christian suspicion of Judaism. Ronald Berger has written that Luther is credited with "Germanizing the Christian critique of Judaism and establishing anti-Semitism as a key element of German culture and national identity." Paul Rose claims that Luther caused a "hysterical and demonizing mentality" about Jews to enter German thought and discourse, a mentality that might otherwise have been absent. The coarseness of the language made his material particularly attractive to Nazism. Franklin Sherman writes that Luther's work on the Jews is not "merely a set of cool, calm and collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an identifiable human group, not just against a religious point of view; it is against that group that his action proposals are directed." Sherman argues that, as a consequence, "Luther cannot be distanced completely from modern antisemites."

Other scholars take a minority position on these issues. They disagree with the attempt to link Luther’s writings to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, arguing that it is too simplistic an analysis. Gordon Rupp wrote: “Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of 'Race'. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.” and "Needless to say, there is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther. The fact that he and other Nazis claimed Luther on their side proves no more than the fact that they also numbered Almighty God among their supporters. Hitler mentions Luther once in Mein Kampf in a harmless context. Johannes Wallmann writes that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries,

Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work. In 1983, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, noting that "Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world," made an official statement "denouncing" Luther's "hostile attitude" toward the Jews. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced that it rejected "this violent invective as did many of his companions in the sixteenth century, and we are moved to deep and abiding sorrow at its tragic effects on later generations of Jews."

Luther and Antisemitism Revision Discussion

I propose the following as replacement for the present form of the "Luther and Antisemitism" section. It accomodates a previous editor's wishes and general direction. It removes the contentious quote from Netto, relegating him to the footnotes. It provides another quote from a scholar. It accomodates much of SlimVirgin's revision. I believe this is a better form of the article and offers a nore NPOV approach that the present article. I respectfully urge editors to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thanks to SV for her work on this section. All references to persons' occupations, or religious commitments, and any such labelling or identification has been removed. Put all comments below the proposed revision. Ptmccain 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies

The original title page of On the Jews and their Lies, written by Martin Luther in 1543.

In his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews' property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and ensure that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." Four centuries later, a first edition of the pamphlet was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. Karl Jaspers said of it: "There you already have the whole Nazi program."

There is little doubt among scholars that Luther's rhetoric contributed to, or at the very least was used by the Nazis to justify their genocidal program against the Jews and others whose lives were deemed unworthy of being lived. One scholar describes Luther’s comments as a foreshadowing of the Nazi program. although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated. At the heart of the debate is how direct a link one can draw from Luther’s ‘’On the Jews and their Lies’’ to the Nazis, or whether Luther’s comments were racially, or religiously, antisemitic or if there is any significance to that distinction.

In The World Must Know, Michael Berenbaum writes that Luther's reliance on the Bible as the sole source of Christian authority fed his fury toward Jews over their rejection of Jesus as the messiah. For Luther, salvation depended on the belief that Jesus was the son of God, a belief that Jews do not share. Earlier in his life, Luther had argued that the Jews had been prevented from converting to Christianity by the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure gospel by Christians, and he believed the Jews would respond favorably to the evangelical message if it were presented to them gently. When they did not, he turned on them. Berenbaum quotes Luther's apparent support for the idea that Christians may be justified in killing Jews: "We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming."

Paul Johnson writes that, even before On the Jews and their Lies, Luther "got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540s he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them from Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."

Regardless of whether Luther's writing was intended as racially antisemitic, many scholars argue that the violence of his views lent a new element to the standard Christian suspicion of Judaism. Ronald Berger has written that Luther is credited with "Germanizing the Christian critique of Judaism and establishing anti-Semitism as a key element of German culture and national identity." Paul Rose claims that Luther caused a "hysterical and demonizing mentality" about Jews to enter German thought and discourse, a mentality that might otherwise have been absent. The coarseness of the language made his material particularly attractive to Nazism. Franklin Sherman writes that Luther's work on the Jews is not "merely a set of cool, calm and collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an identifiable human group, not just against a religious point of view; it is against that group that his action proposals are directed." Sherman argues that, as a consequence, "Luther cannot be distanced completely from modern antisemites."

Other scholars take a minority position on these issues. They disagree with the attempt to link Luther’s writings to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, arguing that it is too simplistic an analysis. Gordon Rupp wrote: “Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of 'Race'. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.” and "Needless to say, there is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther. The fact that he and other Nazis claimed Luther on their side proves no more than the fact that they also numbered Almighty God among their supporters. Hitler mentions Luther once in Mein Kampf in a harmless context. Johannes Wallmann writes that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries,

Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work. In 1983, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, noting that "Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world," made an official statement "denouncing" Luther's "hostile attitude" toward the Jews. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced that it rejected "this violent invective as did many of his companions in the sixteenth century, and we are moved to deep and abiding sorrow at its tragic effects on later generations of Jews."

Discussion of above

OK, above is Rev. McCain's revision removing anything labels of people based on religion, ethnicity or religious affiliation; Jay had indicated he did not want people identified as Jewish, Rev. McCain has an equally strong feeling about being identified based on Lutheran affiliations, I had suggesting removing all labels and letting people write biographies and link to them if they feel more detail about their lives and background is important. The prior revision had been up a week, and had been acknowledged to have been proposed by several editors. It is indeed an attempt to come up with a workable compromise; it leaves the heading as Luther and Antisemitism, which has been a point of contention; it move Siemon-Netto into a footnote, and he has been a point of contention, and it retains much of the language proposed by SlimVirgin. My suggestion is that if people have discussion, it be discussed, and that if there are remaining contentious issues some form of dispute resolution be used, whether it is identifying those issues and seeking outside input through a request for comment or some more formal method. Sam 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you are relatively new to this page, so thanks for trying to work through these things. I have to admit I'm more than a little frustrated. I believe there has been more than enough opportunity for discussion. More than reasonable compromises have been made. There are two entire other articles on Wikipedia that cover this same ground, in my opinion, ad naseum. The same ground has been covered, over and over again. The compromise revision proposed is responsive to concerns and adequately deals with the subject, and it eliminates the POV labelling that one editor attempted to push, but then when labelling was made consistent this has been deemed unacceptable. I'm willing to allow this to stand here, for more discussion, for a few days, but then it is time to insert it and revert any changes to it and move on. Ptmccain 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current version rather than the proposed version. A few points, I think it's helpful and informative for the reader to know that The World Must Know is the official publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, why take that out? And why is the quote from Paul Rose removed? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving out Paul Rose was merely a slip, easily restored. If we identified the publication as coming from the Holocaust museum, would you support the revision? Ptmccain 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire thing is completely unacceptable. As just a few of the many issues:

• You have moved references to Streicher and Der Sturmer further down, to make them less prominent.

Not applicable above Please note that he has left them where they are, but also see my comments on why they ought to be less prominent. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual error and therefore does not applyPtmccain 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You have removed references to a number of writers (including Carroll and Poliakov), supporting the generally held view that it is "most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published," and then accordingly modified the statement so that it is attributed only to one, un-named "modern scholar".

Not applicable above Please note you are looking at my comment, explained and justified below and prior to the edit, not McCain's. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Still applies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)::::

Factual error therefore does not apply -- These persons are cited, as in original.Ptmccain 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You have again used the "one scholar" trick to downplay the fact that historian believe that Luther's work justified, or at least foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis.

Still applies - for discussion. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response -- easily removed if it is regarded as a "trick." Ptmccain 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You have gratuitously inserted the phrase "their genocidal program against the Jews and others whose lives were deemed unworthy of being lived", which is both poorly written, and in any event incorrect and a red herring, since no-one has ever argued that the Nazis ever used Luthers writings to justify persecuting anyone except Jews.

Still applies - for discussion. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'Response'Easily rephrased. Ptmccain

• You have gratuitously inserted the phrase "racially antisemitic", when the historians in question do not differentiate between "racial" and any other type of antisemitism.

Still applies - for discussion. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual error -- was not my choice of words. Easily removed.Ptmccain 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You have consistently described historians who disagree with your viewpoint as "scholars", "former director", "writers", "correspondent", "sociologist", "Jewish studies professor", "author and longtime editor", deliberately downplaying the authority with which they speak on the subject, while describing all those who agree with your viewpoint as "historians".

Addressed above - thoughts on how it was adressed? Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response - the point which continues to fail to receive adequate response is that we either label all persons correctly and fairly, or not at all. Is there something wrong with the word "scholar"? Bernbaum is mistakenly identified in the article. This is a simple factual error. Labels are tricky, aren't they? Either we label thoroughly and completely, or not at all.Ptmccain 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Before you tried to downplay the bona fides of any historians who disagreed with your view, variously describing them as "journalists", "Jewish", "former..." etc. Now you have removed any mention of the bona fides of these people at all, thus making it completely unclear as to why we would care about their opinion at all, all in an attempt to disguise the fact that the qualifications of the people you disagree with are, in general, vastly more relevant and authoritative than the qualifications of the people you agree with.

Addressed above - thoughts on how it was addressed? Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Still applies. The bona fides of the historians in question are important and should be mentioned; otherwise, the reader wonders "why are we quoting these people"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response -- again, either we label everyone completely and accurately or none at all. The article labels some as "Lutheran" but does not label Jewish scholars as such. This is an inconsistency and only tends to skew the POV. Shouldn't the reader know that the vast majority of persons quoted to assert the position that you favor are in fact Jewish scholars? To say so is no different than saying there are Lutheran historians. If we label some, we must label all. A point that has been made repeatedly. Ptmccain 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You have replaced the well-written and clear

whether it is an anachronism to view Luther's sentiments as an example, or early precursor, of racial anti-Semitism — hatred toward the Jews as a people — when he may simply have been expressing contempt for Judaism as a religion.

with the poorly written, unclear, and factually incorrect

how direct a link one can draw from Luther’s ‘’On the Jews and their Lies’’ to the Nazis, or whether Luther’s comments were racially, or religiously, antisemitic or if there is any significance to that distinction.

Still applies - for discussion, though I'll confess I don't find either of these variations particularly clear and satisfactory. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response I do not believe either is very well written either. The first version surely isn't. My attempt was to try to accomodate some of it while improving. Best to start over and rewrite what was poorly written to begin with. Easily done.Ptmccain 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I could go on, but it is clear that the entire re-write, from start to finish, is the usual whitewash. I'm afraid if you want to change the current version you're going to have to propose individual changes here, for discussion, rather than inserting POV re-writes holus-bolus, and then insisting that we all have to figure out exactly what you have changed, and propose objections to those changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Subhead

I'm grateful that you took the time to offer very specific comments. We can't have it both ways. We can not selectively label people. A sociologist is a sociologist regardless of what he has written, a point made quite powerfully by some in regard to Netto. So I dropped Netto. I regret that you choose to rule this revision "from start to finish" the "usual whitewash." I respectfully urge you to work hard to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm trying to do the same. I'll consider the issues you've raised and work on modifying it as a demonstration of WP:GF and ask for the same thing from you please. Thanks.Ptmccain

Some of the changes noted by Jay were in reaction to a comment I had made, which I reproduce below:

Well, here's one comment for you. In the sentance: "The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, [2] a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. [3][4][5]", I don't like the idea of quoting a Nazi newspaper for substance: I generally view Nazis as having very little credibility, and would suggest the quote, if to be used at all, is better used to show what Nazi's thought, and not quoted for the truth of the point. On the "view shared by most contemporary scholars" language, I can't find the support in the texts for the "most radically anti-Semitic tract every published." Steigmann-Gall, in the quoted language, calls it "one of the most" anti-Semitic (he is, among other things, leaving room at the top of the list for the Nazis themselves, of course), and that could be used. Carroll, in a different place in his book, refers to it as one of the most anti-Semitic works "of its time", and I can't find any statement of this sort in Poliakov. I myself would drop the Nazi newspaper quote, especially since it is second-hand via some class slides and not even a published book or article, and replace it with Steigmann-Gall, without any additional cites (the point is strong and clear without them, and for Carroll the Luther discussion is just an aside, since the focus of his book is Roman Catholic anti-semitism since he is, after all, a Catholic Priest). Sam 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, the point of quoting what the Nazis thought of it is precisely to show what they thought of it, which is part of the point of this section i.e. the degree to which they admired Luther and were influenced by him. It's therefore entirely appropriate to use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Read it through with my point in mind and see what you think. When the language indicates that others "agree" with the point, I think it moves to citing it for the truth of the statement (which is that "On the Jews and their Lies" is the most antisemitic tract written). If you look at the changes I made yesterday (I'm sorry, I'm not adept at citing diffs, but it should be easy to pull out from the history), you will see what I would do. I also note I found slightly different statements in Steigmann-Gall and Carroll (on a different page than the cited page in Carroll) and I didn't find the supporting statement in Poliakov (probably the result of summarizing other people's summaries), though Poliakov is an interesting read I'd recommend to everyone. So, I would preserve the reference to the Nazi Newspaper but make it clear that it is showing that the Nazis invoked Luther to support their position. I would then raise the Steigmann-Gall quote to the one being cited for the truth of the matter. I think it makes both points in a way that is stronger and better supported. Sam 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaspers

Especially in an area as contentious as this we can't rely on lecture notes that didn't go through any kind of reviewing process. I'm also worried about the second-hand Jaspers quote. Karl Jaspers would hardly qualify as an independent witness, and the quote (with little comment) appears in the context of fathoming out the context that "On the Jews" was written in. Dr Zak 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would he not qualify as an "independent witness"; and witness to what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What lecture notes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Marc H. Ellis, Hitler and the Holocaust, Christian Anti-Semitism. (Baylor University Center for American and Jewish Studies, Spring 2004.), Slide 14" - looks like a lecture handout to me. Course material such as this is never peer-reviewed. Dr Zak 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been told before that material doesn't have to be peer-reviewed to be regarded as a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a prime example of self-published material being used as a secondary source. Regardless of what I have been told in the past, you should know about credible sourcing, since you like to point it out to people.

There is another problem with that lecture handout: the complete lack of footnotes. In a properly annotated monograph on the subject the assertion (The Nazis were influenced by Martin Luther because his anti-semitic pamphlets were mentioned favorably in the leading Nazi tabloid) would be backed up by copious annotations, and someone who might be skeptic about the conclusion could go back to the original sources and convince himself. Here we have none of that. (Incidentally the same Slide 14 that the ML article cites warns against facile conclusions.) Dr Zak 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of the policies is a recurrent problem. Well-known self-published sources are allowed so long as they're writing in their own area (or are otherwise well known as general commentators e.g. professional journalists). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you dragging policy in so suddenly. You know that the subject "ML and antisemitism" is a contentious one, and it really pays to have watertight, credible sourcing here. In uncontroversial subjects you can get away with "less good" sources, here you can't. Dr Zak 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We must always edits in accordance with policy. We can't pick and choose between reliable sources, otherwise we end up with absurd talk pages like this one; and situations like your efforts elsewhere recently to remove sourced material simply because you personally didn't understand what the source had said. It's not on. Edits must be made in accordance with WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak, can you elaborate on this point, and you too Sam. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. Can you tell me more bout Karl Jaspes? Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.Ptmccain 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jaspers quote appears in Sherman's essay in the context of discussing Luther's antisemitism. and is not elaborated further. Jaspers himself was a philosopher whose focus is the individual, not a historian. In 1937 he had to resign his teaching post and subsequently was banned from publishing. Unless we know the context of the quote I'm inclined to treat it as an offhand remark. Jaspers was known for being a controversial figure in 1960s political discourse regarding Nazi atrocities and the involvement (or non-involvement) of individuals. Dr Zak 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He was prevented from teaching by the Nazis. In what way was he controversial, and why would you assume his comment was an "offhand remark"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" [18] is clear:

After the traumas of National Socialism and the war, however, it is fair to say that Jaspers' political philosophy never moved finally beyond a sceptical attitude towards pure democracy, and his political writings never fully renounced the sense that German society was not sufficiently evolved to support a democracy, and Germans required education and guidance for democracy to take hold. Even in his last writings of the 1960s, in which he declared tentative support for the activities of the student movement around 1968, there remain traces of elite-democratic sympathy. For all his importance in modern German politics, therefore, his philosophy of politics was always slightly anachronistic, and his position remained embedded in the personalistic ideals of statehood which characterized the old-liberal political culture of Imperial Germany and persisted in the conservative-liberal fringes of the Weimar Republic

Doesn't sound flattering, does it? Holding forth about moral values in politics is always easier than participating in government. Someone used the word "Jasperletheater". Dr Zak 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're losing me. Why does the above not sound "flattering"? And why would it matter if it wasn't? We repeat what reliable sources have said. Jaspers is a reliable source. You've been asked before to stop trying to undermine sources because you personally don't approve of them. Does he count as a reliable source for Wikipedia? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, we can use him, and as an academic philosopher, he mostly certainly does count as such. The talk pages aren't here for us to record our personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you been reminded not cherry-pick quotes before? Currently the (second-hand) Jaspers quote is in the lead section, which is supposed to give an overview. Karl Jaspers is a philosopher and perfectly entitled to voice his opinion about politics, including the influence of ML on public opintion in the Nazi era. Trouble is, he wasn't free of controversy. Dr Zak 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't been reminded of that. In what sense was he not "free of controversy"? And who is? I repeat for what feels like the 100th time: it is not up to you to decide to exclude a reliable source just because you personally don't like what they say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you about cherry-picking then: Marc Ellis in his lecture notes cites "On the Jews", gives examples for the reception in the Nazi era and finally says "Remember: Rubenstein refuses such easy blame." Dr Zak 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is more: [19] "In den 60er Jahren ergriff J. immer häufiger in der Diskussion um politische Gegenwartsfragen das Wort. Hierbei scheute er keine Konfrontation und wurde so zu einer der umstrittensten Figuren der deutschen Politik in diesen Jahren. Während die einen über das 'Jasperletheater' spotteten, lobten ihn andere als neuzeitlichen "Praeceptor Germaniae"." Dr Zak 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset indentation). Again: Jaspers is a philosopher, not a historian. He may not be the best qualified person to speak about Luther's reception during the Third Reich. Also, we do not know the context his citation is taken from. Is it a polemic or a serious attempt to discuss the work? You can't just include a source because it says something you like; you should find an authoritative source. Dr Zak 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't say he's a historian; we quote several people who aren't historians. If you want to find the context, go find it. And it wasn't me who added it; all I did was rewrite the section, mostly using material that was already there. The only source I added was Berenbaum. I can't quite see what you're hoping to achieve with these comments, so I'm going to stop responding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added what. The Jaspers needs scrutiny, though. Dr Zak 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you haven't come up with a policy-based reason as to why. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the context, at the moment the quotation is just a second-hand soundbite. If Jaspers discusses Luther's reception in the Third Reich at depth, fine, but if he used it in the context of a polemic, not fine. When did intellectual honesty go out of fashion? Dr Zak 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K., first of all, are you going to stick to that argument? Because you've used several different ones to try to discredit the Jaspers quote, and it's hard to keep track of them all, as you switch from one to the next. Second, could you please name the specific policy you are concerned about, and the specific concern within that policy? Otherwise it's going to be very hard to know how to properly address this issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaspers is a distinguished philosopher, there is no reason on earth not to use this quote, and this discussion is an example of the wearisome overanalysis of trivial points that has beset this talk page.--Mantanmoreland 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we get back to discussing the source, please? First of all, we do not know the context of the quote; we do not know if it was made in the context of an analysis of Luther's reception in the Third Reich or in the context of a polemic. Second, Jaspers was a philosopher whose main concern was the idea of the "self". As such I'm not convinced that he is well qualified to speak about Martin Luther. Since you are asking about policy, the concern is the verifiability policy, which mandates the use of a reliable source. How if we try and address these issues instead of second-guessing my motives? Dr Zak 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote the specific section of WP:V or WP:RS which you feel is at issue here, so we know exactly how to address your concerns? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak, the quote speaks for itself, as does the notability of the person who said it. There is no need to put it under an electron microscope.--Mantanmoreland 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful analysis as if "under an electron microscope" helps in making sure that something is not quoted out of context. This has been done in the past. Perhaps one could find the source of the quotation and examine the context to see if the author is saying what he is said to be saying. --Drboisclair 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jaspers is quite an interesting and appropriate person to quote for this article. I would recommend his lecture "On the Question of German Guilt" to everyone. The Jaspers cite in Sherman is not directly to Jaspers, but rather to Jaspers as quoted by Carter Lindberg, a Boston University theologian, in "Tainted Greatness" (ed. Harrowitz), a book I don't have easy access to. I looked and cannot find the quote in any of Jaspers' English language works. Does anyone know if he said it in 1937 or 1947? That, of course, would be a meaninful distinction. And, of course, the process of tracking down ultimate authority is one that is always relevant, and that we have been through before (recently with the Tetzel quote, for example). Sam 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, it's from Carter Lindberg's article "Tainted Greatness: Luther's Attitudes toward Judaism and Their Historical Reception", in Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes, Nancy A. Harrowitz (ed.), p. 30. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Other points

I think you should all should consider this point, regardless of what version is ultimately used. By the way, if there's a desire to pull Steigmann-Gall out instead of refering to him as a "scholar", that's fine by me. I tried to find as neutral a term as possible: I think his point and his work speaks for itself. Sam 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, when you say "you should all," please don't exclude yourself. You're editing here just the same as everyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When originally drafted, the above was next to my prior paragraph (on moving about the Nazi newspaper, Steigmann-Gall, etc. quotes) and what I was asking "you all" to consider was my point (which I, of course, have considered) - there was no implication intended that I'm not editing the same as everyone else. (Somehow the old song "I'm just a singer in a rock 'n roll band is now going through my head). Sam 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading through Jay's comments, it is clear he is not commenting on the version above, which was modified to take account of his earlier comments on labeling, but rather the one that is posted in the diff (since that, among other things, reflected my comments on citing Nazis for the truth, while the above does not yet do so). Jay, you may want to look at how your earlier comments have been addressed. At this point, I prefer the above, subject to my comments above; I think it reflect input from all quarters better than the current version, and has more chance of being stable on an ongoing basis. Sam 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of them still apply, actually; only one refers to the previous version. In any event, Ptmccain needs to explain the changes he wants to make, and why he wants to make them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes are explained in previous discussion. Refer to archive. Thanks.Ptmccain 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain them again, more clearly, if you want them to be taken into account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion going on here for a couple of weeks is in the archives. I've explained all the reasons for my changes there. I do not see any reason to continue to repeat myself over and over again. It is your responsibility to read the talk pages. I suggest you do so and use the "watch" feature to keep up with the discussion. Ptmccain 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An invisible discussion between Luther supporters is meaningless, especially when you are aware that more neutral editors have not seen that discussion. We're starting from the current version; please propose changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you wish to contribute to this discussion in a positive and constructive manner, that would be great and it is welcome. Please stop interjecting these sorts of inaccurate statements. The discussion on these changes has been going on amongst all those who wish to participate very openly and thankfully, in the last couple of weeks, even in a manner that is civil. It is your responsibility to keep up. The assertion that these were "invisible discussions" is entirely false as even a cursory review of the discussion history proves. The discussions have been in the open, for all to read. Nothing is hidden or invisible. Please contribute positively and in accord with WP:CIVIL and WP:GF or please involve yourself elsewhere. Your persistence in uncivil behavior and accusations of bad faith and the other kind of personal attacks you continue to make are violations of Wiki policy and are not helpful here. I urge you to cease and desist from this manner of bad faith contribution. I'm sure that as a Wiki administrator you will want to demonstrate the highest degree of compliance with WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I respectfully encourage you to do so. Ptmccain 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, please use the Talk: page for proposing changes to the current consensus version of that section, not for discussing your perceptions of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)

Jayjg, please use the Talk: page for proposing changes to the current proposal underway. Stop posting untrue comments [see my remarks above]. Observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF and stop posting observations about your percepions of editors' motives or intentions and your perceptions of other editors. Read the previous disussion in archives which answers your queries. Thanks.Ptmccain 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Post your comments (succintly) about the current version, or realize that your posts will not be read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To make it easier, I've noted above which I think still apply and which don't, and places where you're actually responding to my critique of using a Nazi source to express the truth of a position, as well as my critique of what some of the sources actually do or don't stand for. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that critique above, as well, though am happy to defer that discussion until later if it means some focus on resolving the issues between you and Rev. McCain. Sam 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, please make your points more succinctly. It's becoming impossible to follow who is saying what. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the present version is that it begins with the On the Jews and Their Lies when it should begin, at least, with That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew. As it is it is unbalanced and comes across as bashing. Siemon-Netto, Wallmann, and Oberman are marginalized simply because they do not go along with the prevailing pop-historian POV that is being pushed here. Wallmann is the only scholar who has done research on the reception of Luther's anti-Jewish writings into the 19th century. I challenge anyone to come up with a scholar who has covered the same ground as he has with differing results. One thing should be pointed out: THE NAZIS REDISCOVERED LUTHER'S "PROGRAM", COPIED, AND FOLLOWED IT. People that constantly castigate Luther about this issue lose sight of the fact that Luther is writing in a historical context of medieval anti-semitism. The anti-semitism of his opponent Eck is glossed over. I intend to do some work to bring out the anti-Semitism of Luther's arch-nemesis, John Eck who even accused Luther and the reformers of being protectors of the Jews. This is an example of modern writers anachronistically imposing their POVs on the 16th century. Just because they are in the majority does not make them 100% right.--Drboisclair 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The text does make the point about anachronism. Bear in mind that we are here only to report what others publish, not our own views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point: Siemon-Netto, Wallmann, and Oberman do not necessarily disagree with the "majority opinion" that Luther's anti-Jewish writings were a factor in Nazi antisemitism. They are portrayed here as scholars going against the stream. I think that their agreements with the majority view should be pointed out.--Drboisclair 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, which is why I wrote that "historians don't disagree that ..." Unfortunately, Ptmccain disagrees and wants everything to be black and white, for and against. Nuanced writing seems not to work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If Ptmccain, or anyone else, wants their points to be read, they will have to be made more succinctly. It isn't reasonable to expect people to read through all of the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you find all this so confusing. That surprises me since you seem quite capable of following an incredible amount of minutiae on Wikipedia as even a cursory review of your user contributions would lead most to believe. I'm sure you can manage your way along. Ptmccain 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit it! Post your points clearly and briefly, or stop posting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)